AUBUT: From apathy to agency, rebuilding Canada’s democracy

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/aubut-from-apathy-to-agency-rebuilding-canadas-democracy/66959 

Practical, peaceful reforms to restore legitimacy, empower citizens, and turn voting into a tool for real change

 

Published on: 23 Aug 2025

Canada's political system, like many others in the West, is showing signs of institutional fatigue and public disengagement. Yet for those still committed to the nation and its potential, the question is not whether to resist or retreat, but how to build, how to create functional, forward-looking systems rooted in civic responsibility and institutional renewal. 

As previously discussed in the article Canada's One-Way Political Conversation Has To Be Challenged, our country is trapped in a state of entropy, drifting between preservation and destruction with no meaningful building underway. We seek a future in which citizens are empowered, heard, and respected, not managed or pacified. Building requires structure, not slogans. It demands functional democratic tools that restore legitimacy and create real pathways for reform. 

Our goal is not to burn the system down, but to reintroduce vitality where apathy and cynicism have taken hold. This piece examines what practical, peaceful methods can succeed within Canada's existing system to restore meaningful democratic participation and give every citizen a voice worth using.

Canada's political system, like many others in the West, is facing a legitimacy crisis. Turnout remains low, especially among younger voters, and public trust in government institutions is eroding. Scandals, cronyism, and top-down governance have led many Canadians to conclude that their vote no longer matters. 

The sense of shared nationhood is fraying, and with it the belief that government still acts in the common interest. It is tempting, in the face of such dysfunction, to call for radical solutions. But history and principle both warn us that violence or coercive force, even when cloaked in moral urgency, corrupts what it seeks to save. The only sustainable path forward is one that builds, not destroys.

To build within a system suffering institutional decay requires identifying what levers of influence still remain and using them precisely. Canada’s existing electoral and legal frameworks are not beyond salvage. Rather, they are underused and misapplied. The voting system is treated by many as a futile exercise between the lesser of evils. But if restructured correctly, the act of voting can become the most potent tool of democratic reform available.

The first step is to confront voter apathy, not by blaming voters, but by acknowledging the structural failures that drive it. People don’t vote because they don’t see how it changes anything. When mainstream parties drift toward managerial sameness, the ballot becomes a ritual of consent rather than a real choice. 

Yet what is rarely measured is why people abstain. Polls only ask questions pre-approved by those conducting them, and their samples are too small and clustered to capture broad sentiment. That is why election results, imperfect though they are, remain the most trustworthy form of public data. Everyone has equal access. The sample size is sufficient. The results are binding.

To better capture public discontent, a simple, low-resistance reform would be to include a permanent ballot option, “None of the Above” (NOTA). This could be introduced through a straightforward amendment to the Canada Elections Act, requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to include a NOTA line on every federal ballot. While no such amendment has yet been formally proposed, its simplicity makes it an ideal starting point for citizen-driven legislative advocacy. The purpose is not symbolic protest, but formal accountability. 

NOTA reveals how many voters reject the offered slate entirely. It is not about encouraging disengagement, but about giving voice to the already disengaged. It makes invisible frustration measurable. And unlike spoiled ballots, it cannot be dismissed as an accident or confusion. Australia, which mandates voting and reports over 90% turnout, shows that participation can be enforced gently, through small fines or civic expectation. Adding NOTA to the Canadian ballot would provide the means for expressing legitimate discontent without discarding the democratic process.

Yet NOTA is just one piece. We must also improve our understanding of why voters are dissatisfied. One method is to conduct a scientifically sound, post-election civic poll. This would not be a media poll or a partisan survey. It would be a legally grounded exercise, much like the census, administered by a partnership between Elections Canada and Statistics Canada. 

The key features of this post-election audit would include a sample drawn from the national electors list, ensuring full coverage and legal standing. A stratified random sampling, with built-in declustering methods to eliminate geographic bias. A sample size of at least 100,000, enabling high-confidence national and regional analysis, with mandatory participation for those selected, enforced under the same principles as the census.

The questions would be few, public, and transparent. Focused on civic attitudes, not policy preferences. For example: Do you feel your vote had influence? Would you support mandatory voting? Do you believe the current system represents your interests? The results would be anonymized, published in full, and available for public scrutiny and academic analysis. This would not replace elections, but instead would contextualise them. The goal is to rebuild legitimacy through honest feedback, not manufactured consent.

Beyond polling, the core political structure itself must be opened to reform from the outside in. The mainstream parties are structurally resistant to meaningful change. Their internal systems of party discipline, whip control, and patronage make dissent nearly impossible. To break this cycle, Canadians must shift focus away from party platforms and toward structural mandates. Instead of electing ideologues or careerists, we elect individuals with one purpose, to repair the democratic framework.

This could take the form of a national federation of independent civic candidates. Each would run on a common charter, committing to basic reforms such as NOTA, electoral system redesign, campaign finance transparency, and citizen recall provisions. 

Comparable blocs have emerged in other democracies, for example, anti-corruption independents in Eastern Europe, proving the viability of loosely coordinated reformist coalitions. They would not form a party but a bloc bound by principles rather than hierarchy. Their message is not "vote for us," but "vote to fix the system." 

This stands in sharp contrast to efforts like the Rhinoceros Party or the Longest Ballot Committee, whose actions, whether satirical or performative, trivialize the very system they claim to challenge. Success would not require majority control. A dozen such MPs, elected in targeted ridings with high disillusionment, could force parliamentary debate and block undemocratic legislation. Even one well-placed MP can file bills, initiate committee inquiries, and elevate public awareness.

Strategically, this requires a digital platform, ideally open-source and transparent, to coordinate volunteers, funding, and training while decentralizing action. Civic tech tools such as NationBuilder, Loomio, or custom-built portals can provide the backbone for such campaigns. 

It mirrors how civic movements succeed globally with centralized infrastructure and local execution. Campaigns would focus on small ridings where turnout is low and loyalty weak. The target is not the most ideological but the most neglected, places where hope has eroded but not vanished. These become the proving grounds for democratic renewal.

To further support this movement, proposed legislation must be pre-drafted as simple, transparent, and legally sound. Canadians need to see that the path is not only necessary but doable. Bills should be ready to table on NOTA, post-election polling, mandatory voting, and electoral transparency. These should be made publicly available in draft form for citizen review prior to introduction, reinforcing transparency and trust. Their simplicity is their strength. The more modest and clear the proposal, the harder it is for opponents to reject it without revealing vested interests.

Crucially, all of this avoids violent confrontation, radical upheaval, or fringe ideological capture. It restores faith by building, not destroying, the civic architecture Canadians were promised but have yet to receive. It speaks to voters not as customers of political parties, but as owners of a system in disrepair.

Canada’s system does not need to be burned down. It needs to be rebalanced. That means bringing the builder back into the national conversation. For too long, we have been governed by preservers, those who manage, regulate, and delay, and destroyers, who dismantle under the guise of reform. The builder, who imagines and constructs, has been marginalised. The builder is the citizen who proposes, innovates, and advances not through protest or complaint, but through lawful contribution and principled disruption. 

We must correct this imbalance, not with slogans but with structure. A local legislative reform, public accountability tools, and citizen-driven ballot access initiatives that re-empower the electorate. Only then can democracy move from performance to purpose.

This path will not be easy. It demands civic patience, organizational effort, and strategic thinking. But it is the only path available that does not demand surrender to cynicism, violence, or authoritarianism. It is the path of citizens, not subjects. It begins with the simplest of acts, which are to vote, to speak, and to refuse to be ignored.

Alan Aubut is a retired geologist, based in Nipigon.

 

 

 

 

 

AUBUT: Canada's one-way political conversation has to be challenged

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/aubut-canadas-one-way-political-conversation-has-to-be-challenged/66572 

'Once a metaphor for shifting public opinion, the Overton Window has been replaced by a mechanism of exclusion — where media, government, and cultural elites now decide which ideas may enter and which must remain forbidden.' 

 

Published on: 01 Aug 2025

 The Overton Window is a political theory that describes the narrow band of ideas considered acceptable in public discourse at any given time. Originally developed by Joseph P. Overton of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, it was designed as an analytical tool to explain why some policies gain traction while others are dismissed, regardless of their logical or moral grounding. It became a framework for understanding how ideas move from unthinkable to acceptable, and sometimes into law, by shifting what the public is willing to tolerate or support.

Overton framed his model around a "window" to capture how public perception functions: the public can see a range of ideas, but only those within the frame are considered legitimate topics for serious political or media engagement.

Ideas outside the window are either invisible or instantly discredited. This was a metaphor of perception, not necessarily of action. The window could shift left or right, widen or narrow, depending on cultural change, political momentum, or media influence. But what remained implicit in the metaphor was that the public did not move through the window; rather, the window moved to adjust what the public was shown and allowed to consider.

In theory, this model explains incremental change. Ideas can be slowly normalized. What is unthinkable becomes radical, then acceptable, then sensible, then policy. Conversely, ideas can be moved out of bounds and stigmatized. The metaphor assumes a kind of passive observer — someone watching from behind the glass, granted a curated view of the political landscape.

But the events of the past decade, and particularly in Canada leading up to and during the 2025 federal election, have exposed the limits of the Overton Window metaphor. It no longer adequately describes the active mechanisms of suppression and control being exercised by institutions such as the media, government, academia, and cultural gatekeepers. A more accurate metaphor, one that acknowledges the intentional exclusion of ideas, is the Overton Door.

Unlike a window, which simply allows or restricts view, a door must be opened or closed by someone. It implies action. Control. Agency. And most importantly, permission. Where a window is passive and observational, a door is active and restrictive.

The transition from the window model to the door model marks the shift from perception management to narrative enforcement. This is not simply about framing acceptable debate. It is about blocking it altogether. The best disinfectant is sunlight but when totally blocked, the pestilence continues to fester, unabated.

Take, for example, the public discourse surrounding Islam in Western societies. While Christianity and Judaism are routinely subjected to criticism, satire, and institutional scepticism, any critical examination of Islam’s doctrinal or cultural conflicts with liberal Western values is reflexively dismissed as Islamophobic.

The core contradictions — such as those between Islamic orthodoxy and feminist ideals, or LGBTQ+ rights — are not debated; they are avoided. The door is shut.

The subject is not just discouraged but forbidden. And it is forbidden not by public sentiment alone, but by coordinated institutional behaviour. The media refuses to engage, politicians evade and academics retreat.

In 2017, British author and political commentator Douglas Murray faced widespread backlash and de-platforming campaigns following the release of "The Strange Death of Europe," in which he questioned immigration policies and highlighted ideological clashes between Islamic doctrine and Western liberal norms.

In Canada, similar observations have rarely been allowed to surface within mainstream outlets. This is not a window adjusting public perception. This is a door being slammed to prevent public participation.

Another example is the residential school narrative in Canada, particularly the explosive claims of unmarked graves. Despite the absence of independent forensic validation, the matter has been elevated to unquestionable national truth. Any demand for verification or scientific method is dismissed not as a call for rigour, but as denialism.

British Columbia MLA Dallas Brodie came under immediate fire in 2025 for pointing out the absence of confirmed remains at the Kamloops site, even though her statement was factually correct. Similarly, lawyer James Heller faced libel attacks and professional smears simply for advocating the use of forensic standards when discussing potential grave sites.

The Overton Door metaphor reveals the mechanism here: the topic has not merely moved out of the frame — it has been locked away, and those who try to access it face public shaming or institutional censure.

Similarly, discussions around race and discrimination operate on a controlled-access model. Discrimination against white populations, or the idea that affirmative policies might disadvantage others, cannot be openly questioned. Such concerns are branded as racist before they are even engaged.

In the United States, author Heather Mac Donald has faced boycotts and protests on university campuses for her work questioning race-based hiring and policing narratives. In Canada, even raising questions about differential treatment in academic admissions or job placement is enough to be blacklisted from mainstream platforms.

Again, this is not the perception-management of a window; it is the ideological triage of a door, deciding which voices may speak and which must be silenced.

In the 2025 Canadian federal election, the consequences of this door-centric media culture were fully exposed. Public debate was corralled into a tightly managed narrative: only Liberal or Conservative choices were considered viable, despite deep dissatisfaction across the political spectrum. Core issues like immigration, inflation, housing, and civil liberties were not examined in any meaningful way by legacy media. Alternative parties or independent voices were either ignored or portrayed as threats. This was not a matter of perception. It was enforcement.

Polls were wielded not as instruments of insight, but as tools of reinforcement. Methodologically flawed, unrepresentative, and statistically weak surveys were paraded as evidence of consensus. They shaped expectations rather than recorded them. And media outlets treated these polls as gospel, offering no challenge, no critique. It was as if the door had been bolted shut on electoral diversity, and the public was told to remain still in the corridor.

Even the political philosophy underpinning Western governance has been subjected to door-like control. The traditional spectrum of Hobbesian collectivism versus Lockean individualism — once central to understanding political thought — has been eclipsed by hollow left-right binaries. In reality, the most important distinction is between those who believe in centralized authority for the sake of security (Hobbes) and those who believe in limited government to protect liberty (Locke.)

Today’s progressive ideology increasingly aligns with the Hobbesian model, cloaked in compassion but oriented toward state control. The media class — aligned with this vision — acts as gatekeeper to suppress Lockean arguments. Personal liberty, self-determination, even scepticism of power, are now traits marked as suspect. When Lockean views are expressed — calls for smaller government, individual accountability, or constitutional restraint — they are often met with labels like "far-right," "extremist," or even "Nazi," regardless of whether such terms bear any factual basis.

These accusations serve one purpose: to shut the door on the conversation before it starts. Meanwhile, Hobbesian views advocating for more state power, surveillance, and social conformity face no such linguistic policing. The asymmetry is telling. One side is granted the legitimacy of concern; the other is smeared into silence.

Mr. Trudeau’s government, and now Mark Carney’s leadership, represent this evolution. Both operate within the language of equity and social responsibility, but their real impact has been the expansion of state influence, the marginalization of dissent, and the narrowing of debate. The media has been their enabler, not their critic. It is not just that the window has shifted. The door has been shut, bolted, and guarded.

This brings us to the key distinction: the window metaphor focuses on perception; the door metaphor reveals power. A window moves to adjust what the public can see. A door is controlled by someone who decides who gets to pass — a guardian at the gate there to keep the inquisitive mind out. When institutions curate the narrative so that entire subjects become untouchable, when access to debate is granted or denied based on ideological loyalty, we are no longer in the realm of social consensus, we are in the domain of information authoritarianism.

The path back from this is unclear. But recognition is the first step. Those committed to liberty, truth, and genuine democratic dialogue must stop trying to widen the window and begin demanding the door be unlatched. We do not need permission to speak. We do not need institutional framing to think. And we should not accept curated access to ideas as the price of public engagement.

Joseph Overton gave us a useful concept. But the political reality of our time has moved beyond his frame. The window is now seen for what it really was, and is: a door. And it's time to demand it be opened.

Alan Aubut is a retired geologist, based in Nipigon.