Foreign Affairs Committee on April 11th, 2019

[Prof. Yascha Mounk]

I had the opportunity, in response to a question by another member, to say a bit about my conception of patriotism and nationalism. It's interesting to think it through in the Canadian context. I think there's one important difference between Canada and the United States on the one side and western Europe on the other side. That is, most European countries had a very strong mono-ethnic and monocultural conception of citizenship and nationhood until very recently. Let's say you went into the streets of Berlin or Rome or Stockholm in 1960 and you asked people, “Who really belongs in this society?” Most would have given you a very straightforward answer, such as, “People who look more or less like me. People who have been in this part of the world for many generations.” That has started to change in Europe, but it's a more recent change. It's a change that hasn't yet been fully accepted in large parts of the population.

I think the situation in the United States, and in Canada perhaps especially, is a little different. These have always been multi-ethnic societies. These have always been societies based on immigration. I think the idea of what makes someone a Canadian—their citizenship and their allegiance to a certain set of values and common rules—has much deeper historical roots. The similarity, of course, is that 30 to 40 years ago, in Canada as in Europe, some groups were privileged. They had real advantages on the basis of their skin colour, their religion, and so on and so forth. Canada has come a long way in overcoming that, but it hasn't overcome it completely. As well, some of the people who used to have those privileges are resentful. They feel that their social status is being threatened in exactly the way I was outlining in response to the last question.

I think the way to deal with that is to continue to cultivate a healthy patriotism, as Canada does with its strong allegiance to the flag and other things. I also think it is important to emphasize what we all have in common. We need to—

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

If I may, Professor, do you believe Canada is a good example of a liberal democracy?

[Prof. Yascha Mounk]

I'm not going to say anything else to this committee.

I do believe that, of course. I do think it's important for it to do two things at the same time. First, emphasize and ensure that everybody has the same opportunities, irrespective of origin and skin colour. I also think it's important to cultivate a real sense of people having things in common across different groups. At times, perhaps, I see a danger in some societies, and perhaps that's more developed in Canada than in other places, to emphasize and celebrate differences over similarities. I think for the long-term future of a society where people have solidarity across those boundaries, that can be counterproductive.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

My next question, Professor Mounk, is in relation to a decline of democracy. To what do you attribute the decline? Is it pure ignorance, or is it that people are being smart and using populism as the other word—to put it a little stronger, as a wolf in sheep's clothing? To me, or to my understanding, populism is in between democracy and nationalism. Do you think the trend is smart people hiding in that, in being smart and law-abiding but still, at the end of the day, being the controllers? What do you have to say?

[Prof. Cas Mudde]

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of intelligence. I'm also very skeptical about so-called “fake news” and the better informed supporting liberal democratic policies and the less informed supporting populist policies. I think a lot has to do with self-perceived economic and cultural, as well as gender, interests.

Study after study shows that urban people with higher levels of education, for example, support European integration. People have said that it's because they're smarter. No, they're better educated and live in urban centres and these are the people and the places that profit the most from European integration. If you're less educated and you live in the industrial periphery, like the Rust Belt, you get less out of that. I think both have self-interest. I don't think, systematically, people make decisions that are that much different.

Does that mean the liberal democrats have failed those people who now vote for the populist radical right? Are these the so-called “losers” of modernization? Only a small subset of them are. This is one of the biggest problems. We have this cliché image of white working-class men, pretty much, who are the support base of these parties, but it's only a small portion of the larger point.

On top of that, many of these men have not been hit hardest by the system. Non-white minorities have been hit much harder. Women have been hit much harder. It's about, first of all, whether you feel grievances, and—I think this is very important—whether those grievances are acknowledged by the broader community. This is where we all play a role. After Trump won, we had article after article about the poor white male in the Rust Belt, who yes, has issues, but what about older African-American men and women who live in the depleted cities? They were again written out of the story, so they don't get a voice. I think it's a bit more complex.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you.

Next is MP Vandenbeld, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'm going to give the first question to Borys, and then I'll go.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

These will actually be two, hopefully quick, questions and answers.

First, if Hungary were not a member of the EU today, do you think they would be able to join the EU? Can I have a quick yes or no, Professor Mudde?

[Prof. Cas Mudde]

Yes, for the simple reason that EU politics is about power politics, and the EPP would still want them in.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Professor Mounk.

[Prof. Yascha Mounk]

That's a very pessimistic answer. Unfortunately, Dr. Mudde may be right, but certainly they would not, under any circumstances, fulfill the criteria by which, in theory, the EU would decide that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That's exactly what I'm getting at. What we've been watching, since his election in the last free and fair elections in Hungary in 2010, is the slow democratic suicide of the Hungarian state with Orbán as the architect. It appears that it's being done with the inept assistance of the EU. There's approximately 90 million euros in assistance per week going to Hungary, a lot of which potentially—or so it appears—ends up in Orbán's oligarchic allies' pockets.

Professor Mounk, you said—and most people agree—that 2010 was the last time there were free and fair elections. They had elections in 2014 and 2018. By most measures, people would say those were not free and fair, yet Hungary is being allowed to use these EU elections for Orbán's plan for a takeover. Everyone's aware of it. They're using the EPP as a vehicle, under a slogan about God, family and nation, for a takeover of the EU. It's being done in plain sight. You don't have democratic elections in Hungary. He's sending a cadre of people into the European Parliament. I'd like it if you could quickly comment on that issue.

[Prof. Yascha Mounk]

Is this question for me?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sure, yes.

[Prof. Yascha Mounk]

One good point is that there's no bright line between when elections are free and fair and when they are not. What we've seen in Hungary is the slow corrosion of the democratic system, so it's very difficult to know at which point elections were no longer free and fair. The 2014 election was probably on the cusp. There were some irregularities, but I may still have called it mostly free and fair. At this point the country is no longer one that has a free and fair democracy. When I was in Hungary for research just a couple of weeks ago, I was struck by how afraid ordinary people are to speak about politics—because they're actually afraid of real repercussions.

I think that the situation in Hungary is a sign of the utter failure of the political establishment in Europe to take seriously the threat of a return to populism. The fact that Fidesz is still a member of the European People's Party is, frankly, shameful. Europeans are hugely underestimating the way in which this threatens the very survival of the European Union.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to go to this notion of political party capture that's come up in both your testimonies. I know Mr. Mounk, you said these are no longer marginal. We usually think of this as a small group of people who, maybe because of the proportional representation systems, are able to get into political office but are not the vast majority. Now you've stated they tend to be dominant.

I think, Mr. Mudde, you were saying that the mainstream political parties, the liberal democratic political parties, are allowing these smaller groups to frame the issues and the agenda. To what extent is this a rise in the number of people who support this kind of populism or is it that within the political systems more room is being given inside parties and inside parliaments to give them space?

[Prof. Cas Mudde]

I think both. Clearly, populist parties have been growing, particularly in the 21st century. However, their sentiments.... Again, we speak primarily about the populist radical right and the integration of nativism and authoritarianism rather than necessarily anti-establishment sentiments, but you see all that to the extent that in certain cases you barely need to have a populist radical right-wing government to have the same type of discourse, at least, and to a certain extent even policies.

I think my own country, the Netherlands, is a very good example. The current government is formed in a very complex way with four parties to keep out the radical right, to keep out Geert Wilders, yet both the VVD, which the Prime Minister is from, as well as the CDA, the Christian Democrats, campaigned on agendas that were almost like copies of Geert Wilders.

The Austrian government at the moment is also a very good example of how that works. The ÖVP, which is a conservative party, is clearly the dominant party in the coalition in terms of power, yet it has adopted a lot of aspects of the FPÖ. It's not just the FPÖ becoming bigger. It is that voices that are similar to it, for whatever reason—strategic or ideological—are now also important within mainstream parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you.

Time is up. I see we only have a few minutes left, so we're going to go straight to MP Kusie to finish off.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the current situation going on here in our Government of Canada.

Dr. Mounk, in terms of the elements of forbearance, you mentioned the judicial system being manipulated, little or no regard for the rule of law and the media being manipulated. I'm sure you may have heard of the recent SNC-Lavalin scandal going on here in Canada, where the Prime Minister and his chief of staff allegedly attempted to influence the Attorney General, who resisted, to create a deferred prosecution agreement for this large corporation. The primary secretary, in support of that, said they'll spin the media so the story played better.

There, within the story itself, we see three of these elements: the manipulation of the judiciary, no regard for the rule of law and attempted manipulation of the media. However, we are supposed to be studying here, as a model democracy, how to set a good example and how to help other democracies that are challenged by the upholding of these same principles that are eroding.

Given this, what advice would you have for our government here in Canada and what advice would you have for the Canadian public, please?

[Prof. Yascha Mounk]

I'd like to thank the member for throwing me these softball questions.

I would say that liberal democracy lives off a very clear separation of powers and it lives off independent institutions, including in particular independent prosecutorial services that are not subject to government pressure. I am far from an expert in Canadian politics, and I can't comment on the details that you alluded to, but what I would say is that there is always a danger in liberal democratic systems that any government will be tempted to overstep the boundaries of its appropriate authority or that it may try, in various ways, to influence independent agencies about politically sensitive matters. It is absolutely important for liberal democracy that opposition parties stand up to that and for the media to report those things critically.

I would also want to emphasize that there's a real distinction between governments that are committed to liberal democratic values, and don't always live up to their own standards when they are in a complicated situation—and that should be condemned—and authoritarian populists who don't acknowledge the legitimacy and the importance of those distinctions in principle and go out of their way to try to undermine the ability of those kinds of institutions and norms to actually safeguard the political system.

We all as citizens need to be very watchful when governments fall foul of those rules in any kind of way. However, as a political scientist who has studied the impact of populist governments compared with the impact of non-populist governments, it is very clear that the danger to democracy is very serious when this is part of an ideological approach and a consistent set of attacks on institutions, rather than when it is a regular scandal, which you get in every democracy in the history of the world, where people sometimes fail to live up to the standards that they set out for themselves.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Mudde, would you care to comment on this as well, please?

[Prof. Cas Mudde]

I agree. This is one of the reasons why sometimes the critique of populists and the populist radical right is so hard. No liberal democracy is perfect and several slip up regularly. What you actually see is that, overall, populists do particularly well in countries that slip up regularly. Hungary was not working perfectly before Orbán came. Italy has a long history of populism for a very good reason.

At the same time, some of them are successful in countries that are considered to be the cleanest, like Sweden or the Netherlands or whatever. It's important to keep perspective, but it also shows the importance of opposition. What you see in the countries like Hungary, for example, is that, to a large extent, with Orbán's power, he's very popular but he also has no opposition, because the opposition, particularly the social democrats, were involved in massive corruption and then split.

Left to their own devices, I personally would trust no one. That's why opposition is important. There is also a major difference between someone who believes, in principle, that there is a legitimate opposition but just under certain circumstances would wish them not to be powerful, and someone who believes that there is no legitimate opposition. They will always go further. This is an important issue.

In my own country of the Netherlands, there is a lot of corruption coming out of the governing party as well, which should be dealt with both by the media and politics much more pronouncedly, if only so that you don't leave issues like this only to the populists, because then they can profit from it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.