Are the Blockades Backfiring?

If the objective of those protesting the construction of the Coastal Gaslink pipeline through Wet’suwet’en territory was to bring attention to the issue, they have certainly done that. If their objectives were to gain support for reconciliation and opposition to the pipeline, they appear to not only have failed but achieved the opposite.

A survey published by Angus Reid reports that 80 percent of Canadians feel that reconciliation has been negatively affected, and support for the pipeline has risen over the last two weeks from 51 percent to 61 percent. Almost 80 per cent also believe the blockades have hurt Canada’s reputation as a place for investment.

As to ending the blockades, Canadians are split. Half say use patience and half say use whatever force is necessary. NDPers overwhelmingly support the former and Conservatives the latter.

Few have much good to say about the politicians. Only one-in-five Canadians say the Prime Minister has handled the situation well. He isn't alone. Only 18 percent of British Columbians feel Premier Horgan has done a good job. Premier Kenney, however, did get the support of most Albertans.

The poll results aren't surprising. While I suspect most Canadians believe peaceful protest is a healthy part of democracy, most find the use of force unacceptable. Blockading railroads and burning tires simply crosses the line. And, as Angus Reid's survey demonstrates, they can produce contrary consequences.

The Iranian Pseudo-election

Last week, Iran held an election for members of its Islamic Consultative Assembly, the country's Parliament or Majlis. The Majlis is something less than a ruling body. To begin with, candidates are screened by a council which answers ultimately to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. In addition to screening all candidates, the Guardian Council holds veto power over all legislation approved by the Majlis.

Despite this subservience to the supreme Leader, turnout for parliamentary elections has consistently been above 50 percent. Until last Friday that is, when it dropped to 43 percent. In the capital, Tehran, it was only 25 percent, half its previous average.

Khamenei blamed the low turnout on Iran's enemies, claiming they were exaggerating the threat of the coronavirus, but there were in fact a number of more plausible reasons. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the country’s clerical rulers and the state of the economy, suffering under intense sanctions pressure from the United States.

The reformist and moderates bloc, associated with President Hassan Rouhani, faced a highly disappointed public. In 2016, the bloc were given a parliamentary majority on the back of the landmark nuclear deal that offered relief from global sanctions in exchange for curbs on Iran's nuclear program. The bloc had promised greater freedoms and international engagement. But the Americans withdrew from the deal, reimposed sanctions, and the economy went into free fall. According to Zohreh Kharazmi, an assistant professor of American studies at Tehran University, "Many people were not very satisfied with [the bloc's] economic policies and their investment in [the nuclear agreement] rather than in domestic [issues]." The Guardian Council disqualifying thousands of reformist and moderate candidates didn't help.

Conservative voters, on the other hand, were keen to show their support for the regime and their anger at the Americans' assassination of Qassem Suleimani.

The result was a sweep for hardline conservatives, including all Tehran ridings. The victory was soured, however, by the low turnout. If the election illustrated anything it was the frustration, or even hopelessness, of a people victimized by the combination of a corrupt autocratic government and an uncompromising enemy.

The EU Declares War

I apologize for the alarmist headline. The European Union hasn't actually declared war, more a case of having recognized a war, a shadow war. Vera Jourova, Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency, claims Russia and China are engaging in a "digital war" with fake news and disinformation in order to undermine European democracy. She is all about fighting back.

She is right to be alarmed of course. There is no greater enemy to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping than democracy. If anything causes them sleepless nights, democracy is it. With massive militaries including nuclear weapons, they've got the external threats covered. But if their people start to think seriously about choosing their own leaders, the regimes could collapse from the inside. Both Putin and Xi know about that.

Ms. Jourova, who is all too familiar with dictatorship, having grown up in communist Czechoslovakia, has been assigned to develop the European Democracy Action Plan. She intends to set clear goals: in addition to fighting disinformation the plan will aim to strengthen the media sector, make platforms more accountable and protect the democratic process.

Jourova reports the EU is "getting better at detecting and countering disinformation. We have set up a Rapid Alert System ... to facilitate the sharing of data and assessments of disinformation campaigns and enable alerts .... We have pushed the digital industry to sign up to the Code of Practice on Disinformation for online platforms and the advertising sector."

She insists this isn't enough. "We need to enlist the whole of civil society, including media, academia and fact-checkers," she declares, "This is why we have funded ... a digital service infrastructure ... to support co-operation between fact checkers and academia. This is why ... we have proposed the Creative Europe Programme 2021-2027 to support quality journalism."

In a speech to a recent conference in Brussels on disinformation, she emphasized the unfortunate fact that "Disinformation and foreign interference are a soft underbelly of our democracy, because they attack one of our dearest values—freedom of speech and the right to information." And quoted Hannah Arendt to outline the goals of Russia and China: "The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist." She could be describing the world of Donald Trump.

In a nice take on Mark Zuckerberg's attitude, she summarized her approach to social media, "I want the platforms that have contributed to breaking things ... to fix them." With a warrior like Ms. Jourova on their side, the EU should be well-equipped to deal with the enemy.

Is the U.S. Returning to Its Imperial Roots?

In 1776, the United States declared its independence of Great Britain. The Americans had had their fill of aristocracy and monarchy. Once they had defeated the British, they wrote a constitution that would establish and constrain the federal government. The head of state, for example, now a president rather than a king, would be limited to enforcing laws that an elected Congress enacted.

Constitution or not, the country seems to be looking more and more like the United Kingdom under George III. While it doesn't have an aristocracy of nobles, it certainly has an aristocracy of great wealth, both earned and inherited. And, with the help of the Supreme Court, this aristocracy in combination with corporate interests now has more power than the people.

This isn't exactly what the founding fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, declared “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Well, in fact, that aristocracy that so concerned Jefferson has prospered mightily and now dominates government.

And although the U.S. doesn't have a king, it does have an increasingly imperial president. As the power of the country has grown, so has the power of the presidency, especially since 9/11. The Constitution determined that the power to initiate a war belonged to Congress, but the president has acquired more war powers despite the Constitution. He reigns supreme in foreign policy and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so the massive buildup of the military has in itself greatly expanded presidential power. Being able to go to war would seem to be a kingly privilege.

And the power of the president is by no means restricted to foreign affairs. He can exercise great influence over the economy as we have seen with Donald Trump, who has managed to throw the whole world economy into confusion with his arbitrary actions. And through his cabinet appointments he can greatly influence other areas, such as the environment, an area Trump is also undermining.

Indeed, Trump apparently believes that Article II of the Constitution allows him to do anything he wants as president. And one of his impeachment lawyers, Alan Dershowitz of O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein fame has stated, "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." Considering that every politician considers his election to be in the public interest, that would seem to give the president carte blanche. Are we edging toward the divine right of presidents?

One wonders where the people are in all this. They continue to play a role, of course, but an increasingly diminished one. They seem to be almost back to where they started, subject to a king and his nobles. Has American history come full circle?