People talk about whether their members of parliament represent their interest, or only that of the party that they belong to. The track record of the ruling party. Promises by the competing parties. The personality of the party leaders. The plight and the right of the First Nations, indigenous people. Legalisation of marijuana. LBGTQ+. Abortion. Anti-Semitism. Islamophobia. High prices of houses. Taxes. Many very different opinions and positions, heated debates.
At the national level, Quebec threatens to separate from the rest of Canada periodically. They even have a party that advocates separation, and hold referendums to let the people in the province decide. Mostly, the struggle is peaceful, even though it can be passionate, heated and fierce. Canadian in the other provinces generally do not like the idea. But they seem willing to consider the possibility.
A common assumption seemingly taken for granted by all is that one can speak one’s mind and engage in debates, without fear. One may win an argument and be happy, or lose it and be frustrated. But one does not have to fear getting into trouble. A politician may lose an election and got sent to the political wilderness. But one will not be arrested for advocating certain policies and positions. Unless one becomes violent. One might use the opponent’s weaknesses, indiscretions, and outrageous behaviour to attack. It might look ugly, vulgar, low blow. But one does not usually get into more trouble than being criticised verbally. Nobody seems to be accused of being unpatriotic (certainly not for being a traitor) for referencing foreign events, opinions, or precedences.
It is a much more civilised way of playing politics. Perhaps not very efficient. But much safer. In the long run, much more sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment