Politics of Hatred: The Dangers of Strongman-Populism to Canadian Democracy
Canadian political identity has often been imbued with a sentiment of moral superiority that sees political discourse, rhetoric, and principles in Canada as exceedingly tolerant, civilized and rational. This perception positions Canada as less susceptible to the tumultuous and hyperpolarized environments that plague political struggles globally. The nature of Canadian politics as a liberal democracy has led to assumptions that Canadian citizens and political actors are somehow inherently immune to the dangers of populist rhetoric; that the risk of internal democratic backsliding and collapse of foundational liberal values is not a legitimate threat in Canada.
Visual Credit: pm.gc.ca/photos
Despite this misplaced trust in Canadian political moderation, Canadians must not take the fundamental features of democracy and pluralism for granted. A gradual but observable shift in the characteristics of political sentiments governing mainstream discourse is clear, signaling a dangerous trajectory for the health of democracy. This shift is encapsulated by the increasingly rapid rise of Conservative populism, highlighted by leader Pierre Poilievre and the political rhetoric espoused and projected by his campaign and supporters in their critique of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. A stark divergence from the once ostensibly bipartisan and moderate nature of Canadian politics, public discourse between Liberal and Conservative partisans has become increasingly permeated with pervasive, yet familiar, populist rhetoric that aims to galvanize and divide. Contemporary Canadian political discourse is becoming increasingly tied to assessment and contempt toward the personality of individual leaders, and consequently these feelings of resentment and frustration are being capitalized upon to encourage an environment in which politics of hatred are the driving force.
The focus on the personality of individual leaders and charisma is a slippery and dangerous slope. While it is highly challenging–some might argue impossible–to completely separate policy from personality, it is crucial to remain acutely wary of the perils of making political choices on the pure basis and influence of personality. Populist leaders often rely on garnering support through charismatic and persuasive rhetoric that captures the grievances of the populace while positioning themselves as the clear and simple solution to these complex problems. These political narratives that highlight strength and capability as the fundamental characteristics of competent leadership are most commonly espoused by leaders who adopt the strongman model of political rhetoric.
Strongman politics and populism are closely affixed, relying closely on “personality-driven politics” that portray the country to be in dire need of a “strongman”–a masculine leader who can swiftly fix the existing problems through their blunt and imperious style of leadership. Consequently, strongman politics bring a concerning return to “macho leadership” that has been shown historically to usher in democratic backsliding and eventually authoritarianism. Strongmen leaders come to power through democratic election, purporting to adhere to liberal democratic principles, before ultimately beginning the process of consolidating and centralizing power, setting down on the dark path toward autocracy. The potent danger that strongman politics pose to democratic reform and strength can be seen in the rise and policies of leaders globally such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, China’s Xi Jinping, and the man who many consider to have heralded the era of strongman politics–Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Most menacingly influential to the identity and beliefs pervading Canadian politics is the popularity and support behind the non-democratic ideals championed by America’s strongman, Donald Trump.
Having established the fragile precarity of liberal democratic health in the face of persuasive populist-strongman rhetoric, we must now turn to acknowledge and address the growing presence of such rhetoric within contemporary Canadian politics. Nowhere is this proliferation of strongman, macho-ist narratives in politics clearer than in the dialogue and criticism surrounding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. While political opposition and dissent is imperative to the function of liberal democracy, critique of leadership should be made on grounds of platform and policy. However, observation suggests that Conservative populist rhetoric has capitalized on the global trend toward macho leadership, leading to criticism of Trudeau that is increasingly inclined toward personality driven attacks, encouraging politics of hatred. Such attacks routinely see Trudeau disparaged for being “soft” and “feminine”; framed as an incompetent leader due to his effeminate qualities. When Trudeau was elected in 2015, some hoped that this signaled the strength of Canadian progressivism. Despite Conservative campaign strategies to highlight Stephen Harper’s traditionally masculine qualities, positive reception to Trudeau’s “boyish” qualities ultimately won out, leading some to optimistically suggest that Trudeau’s election “redefined politics of manliness,” as typical strongman rhetoric seemed to lack powerful persuasion over Canadian voters. However, eight years later, the feeling cannot be ignored that the politics of manliness are back globally–if they ever left at all–and Canadian political actors are far from being above the siren song of strongman-populism.
Contemporary frustrations with Trudeau’s governance often revolve around issues such as inflation, climate-change commitments, and housing crises. Conservative populism, led by Pierre Poilievre, has harnessed these frustrations into a “internet-fuelled, resentment-driven wave” of personality-focused politics that seeks to exacerbate conflict and division, fostering an environment in which politics of hatred reign supreme. A 2023 poll suggests that many male Canadian voters dislike Trudeau not based on policy but simply because they don’t like him as a person. This shift towards criticism focusing primarily on personality, rather than policy, is indicative of a disquieting trend in Canadian politics that sees a political landscape increasingly receptive to populist, strongman rhetoric.
One might be inclined to disregard this article as an egregious overreaction–an attempt at fearmongering among Canadians with the daunting but unrealistic threat of authoritarianism. However, while a sudden and drastic overhaul of Canada’s democracy seems far-fetched, the implications of Conservative populist rhetoric within the context of global democratic backsliding and the rise of authoritarianism must be examined.
Inspiration for this article arose following a revealing and perturbing observation of Canadian political behaviour on social media. Recall the controversy following a surfaced video in which Chinese leader Xi Jinping accosts Trudeau about Canadian officials sharing details of a previous meeting between the two with media. In response, Trudeau countered that “In Canada, we believe in free and open and frank dialogue and that is what we will continue to have.” To me, this encounter represented Jinping’s attempt to extend and impose China’s practices of media suppression upon Sino-Canadian relations, while Trudeau remained insistent on maintaining the transparency between government and citizens that is foundational to Canadian democracy. I wrongly assumed that–if for nothing else–Canadian partisans could reconcile in backing the leader of Canada against the will of an authoritarian dictator.
However, on the popular Toronto-based instagram page “6ixbuzztv”, countless comments from Trudeau’s critics seemed to relish watching the Prime Minister be seemingly scolded and embarrassed by another world leader. Echoing the familiar strongman rhetoric, comments suggested the soft Trudeau had been rightfully reproached by the more powerful, manly leader. This indicates to me that the politics of hatred, directed toward Trudeau’s personality through Conservative populist rhetoric, have had deeply pernicious effects on the nature of Canadian politics. Personality-driven contempt for Trudeau has overcome the capacity for productive discourse and objective evaluation of leadership. Division within Canada is so extreme that critics of Trudeau are willing to embrace and laud the actions of a repressive dictator over the leader of an opposing political party within Canada.
Contention and disputation are inherently necessary properties of healthy Canadian democracy, but partisans must be able to reconcile and unite in denouncing a government that espouses and projects values both antithetical and threatening to the integrity of Canada’s foundational beliefs of liberal democracy. If Canadians cannot come together in denouncing an autocratic leader and one-party state government that stands diametrically opposed to the fundamental principles on which Canada is built, this is the sign of a broken nation–one in which division has created fragility.
Tragic backslides in democracy rarely occur out of thin air. The signs are always there; the question is whether the people of the time choose to see them before it’s too late. In the study of politics, every outcome must be considered; no stone left can be unturned. If we envision a healthy and functional liberal democracy as a shining castle of hope, a haven for freedom and justice, then authoritarianism is the enemy at the gates, waiting for an opening in the ideological walls to inject itself and expand. We must not allow such openings for enemies to intrude and persuade. At every turn, every junction, we must recognize and reject the temptations of strongman, populist rhetoric; we must avoid allowing blind personality-driven politics to steer us toward populist leaders with anti-democratic intentions. By remaining unflinchingly loyal to the foundational principles of liberal democracy, we can fortify the castle gates.
While political strife and dissent can and should persist within the walls of liberal democracy, the destructive forces of authoritarianism must remain on the outside, never allowed in. Canada exists in a precarious geographical location, sitting next to a boiling ideological cauldron in America; it’s almost impossible to avoid feeling the waves of far-right ultraconservatism and strongman-populism permeating the Donald Trump-era. It remains imperative, however, that we recognize the poisonous effects engendered by the politics of hatred, and do not let them be the authoritarian cancer that festers within and corrupts our liberal democracy until its very survival is at risk.
Julian (he/him) is a third-year Politics student, Philosophy minor, and Editorial Board member at Political Digest.