Canada-U.S. Relations - Democracy for the Rest of Us

AS JUSTIN TRUDEAU, BARACK OBAMA, AND THEIR respective teams hook up in Washington D. C. this week they face a pressing reality that they can’t escape: a restless citizenry. Regardless of the Trump controversy, the Republicans are enjoying significantly swelling numbers of support, as are the Democrats, primarily with Bernie Sanders. It can never be business as usual for the Washington meetings, simply because no one is quite sure where energized citizens in both countries will land. Canadians have made their choice but are hardly settled; Americans are in the middle of a cauldron.In other words, civil society is biting back. What do we mean by the term “civil society?” In loose terms it speaks of the multitude of groups serving as intermediaries between the individual and state. It’s how individual citizens organize themselves for impact. And their operational principles are often different from those of the free market or government.A lot of research, commentary, and narratives have emerged in recent years claiming that civil society has been in a state of integration for some time. A few conservative observers like to say it is because government has taken over roles that once used to belong to communities. Others maintain that individual efforts can never match the capacity of government programs and initiatives and that, as governments downsize, the collective effect on society is debilitating.Whatever the reason, recent research is beginning to show a troubling pattern. Carlton University professor Paul Reed talks about Canada’s “civic core” and how it has declined. A smaller and smaller percentage of the population Is responsible for the lion’s share of charitable giving, volunteerism, and civic activity. His research has revealed that only 6% of adult citizens are now responsible for between 35% and 42% of all civic engagement. Reed concludes that his research clearly reveals a “civic deficit” and that it’s a growing problem. American scholar Yuval Levin takes it a step further, seeing in the decline of civil society “a loss of the central pillars of our moral life.”British PM David Cameron sees a role for government in it all: “The success of the Big Society will depend on the daily decisions of millions of people – on them giving their time, effort, even money, to causes around them. So government cannot remain neutral on that – it must foster and support a new culture of voluntarism, philanthropy, social actions.”Some fancy speechwriter composed that. But what happens when civil society itself begins to fight its way back? That’s the dilemma Trudeau and Obama both now face. All around them citizenship is stirring and people are demanding governments that show greater sensitivity to where people live, the challenges they face, and the kind of politics they want. Back of every tinkling of champagne glass lies the broken glass of middle-class dreams. Behind the lavish décor lie hundreds of thousands of homeless. And with every lofty bit of political rhetoric lies a citizenry in the wings raising its own collective voice, crying that there is a democracy for the rest of us. Both leaders would do well to hearken to philosopher John Dewey’s counsel:

Whatever the future may have in store, one thing is certain. Unless local communal life can be restored, the public cannot adequately resolve its most urgent problem, to find and identify itself. But if it is reestablished … it will be alive and flexible, as well as stable, responsive to the complex and worldwide scene in which it is enmeshed. While local, it will not be isolated. Its larger relationships will provide an inexhaustible and flowing fund of meanings upon which to draw. That and that only gives reality to public opinion.