Populism, freedom, and democracy in Alberta (and beyond)

Lessons from my grade fiver's homework assignment

From Athens to Alberta

Like many Grade 5 students grappling with the new K-6 social studies curriculum, my ten-year-old daughter has homework this snowy weekend. The topic: Athenian democracy.

I applaud her teacher for making the topic engaging and even more so for sparking a classroom debate about ancient versus modern (liberal) democracy. When asked which she preferred, my daughter confidently chose the latter. Why? “Because as a woman, at least I’d have a vote.”

Her assignment got me reflecting on Alberta's democracy, which—by most measures—is not in great shape.

It’s important to remind ourselves: this is not the way it’s supposed to be, according to the textbook. Nor is it how we’d expect democracy to work given the UCP’s own commitments.

How could a party born out of a grassroots democracy movement stray so far from its promise? How could a party calling itself "conservative" move to undermine individual rights? How could a populist party that claims to prioritize "the people" seek to consolidate so much power in the premier’s office? How could a libertarian premier oversee the most obtrusive state aparatus in a generation?

Some critics cry hypocrisy or opportunism, but I suspect something deeper is at work. If my fifth-grader’s lessons provide any insight, the United Conservative Party operates quite coherently, but with a fundamentally different view of freedom and democracy than Albertans are used to. And that’s what should worry us.

What follows is a lengthy discussion of the populist approach to freedom and democracy. I try my best to keep the conversation high-level and accessible. For those of you that want more “meat”, I highly recommend David Runciman’s History of Ideas podcast.

My fifth grader helped me with the too-long-didn’t-read (TL;DR) section below, but I hope the remainder is of use in making sense of the UCP era of Alberta politics.

TL;DR (a fifth-grader’s interpretation of this essay)

Populist parties like the United Conservatives often claim to restore power to the people, but their idea of freedom and democracy is fundamentally different from what most of us are used to. Instead of protecting individual liberties and group rights, and ensuring diverse voices are heard, populists push a version of democracy that focuses only on the will of the majority—often at the expense of minorities and dissenters.

Populists see institutions like courts, legislatures, and independent bodies as barriers to the will of the people and work to weaken them, all while consolidating power. Over time, this approach doesn’t just create a less fair and open society—it risks destroying democracy altogether, leaving behind a system that looks democratic in name only.

Want to dive deeper? Read on.

The Populist Approach to Democracy

Populism is often described as anti-elitist, but its defining feature is its rejection of pluralism: a democratic approach that embraces diversity, advocating for the coexistence and active participation of multiple groups, perspectives, and interests to ensure no single entity dominates decision-making.

Populists frame democracy as the unfiltered expression of the "will of the people," sidelining institutions and expertise. However, their concept of "the people" is rarely inclusive. Instead, they imagine a homogenous majority whose values they espouse, casting minorities and dissenters as obstacles or threats to “democracy.”

This worldview fuels populists’ hostility to equity, diversity, and inclusion. These principles challenge their majoritarian ethos, which insists that government should cater exclusively to the majority while dismissing minority rights or protections as undue concessions.

Similarly, populists often invoke freedom, but their concept of it is tied to loyalty to the dominant group rather than universal liberties. As Benjamin Constant observed, this echoes ancient democratic systems where freedom was reserved for those who conformed to the ruling group, with outsiders excluded and individual rights subordinated to collective will.

In the modern (liberal democratic) sense, freedom is about individual rights and group protections. This pluralistic vision embraces diversity and ensures that no single group or perspective dominates.

By contrast, the ancient notion of democracy was steeped in majoritarianism. Freedom was a collective privilege, granted to those who were accepted into the dominant group. In ancient Athens, "the people" enjoyed freedom as a protected class, while outsiders were excluded and often regarded as threats to the community’s way of life. In this view, individuals were subordinate to the collective. Those who aligned with the ruling majority were free to live as they pleased, so long as their actions reinforced the prevailing norms.

The Tensions Between Liberalism and Democracy

The erosion of liberal democratic norms under populist governance highlights a tension that political theorist Carl Schmitt once identified: the inherent contradictions between liberalism and democracy.

Schmitt argued that “liberal democracy” is in many ways an oxymoron, attempting to reconcile two fundamentally different principles. Understanding this tension sheds light on why populism so effectively exploits the cracks in the system.

At its core, liberalism is about protecting individual rights and freedoms, often through mechanisms that constrain the power of majorities. Institutions like independent courts, media, and boards and commissions exist to ensure that no single group, even an electoral majority, can dominate or oppress others. Liberalism values deliberation, compromise, and the rule of law—all of which prioritize stability and the protection of minority rights over the immediate will of the majority.

Democracy, on the other hand, is fundamentally majoritarian. It presumes there is a singular common good. It emphasizes the direct expression of the people’s will, often through electoral processes that produce clear winners and losers. Democracy produces decisions reflecting the preferences of the most numerous group(s) in society, even when those preferences conflict with established norms or the rights of the less numerous.

As Schmitt pointed out, liberalism seeks to temper the blunt force of majorities, while democracy resists the constraints imposed by liberal institutions. This tension creates a constant push-and-pull within democracies like Alberta.

The more liberal a system becomes, the less responsive it may appear to the will of the majority. The more democratic it becomes, the more likely it is to erode the safeguards that protect individual and minority rights.

Populists thrive on exploiting this tension. They argue that liberal institutions—courts, legislatures, the press, academics—are undemocratic because they obstruct the majority’s will. By framing liberal safeguards as barriers to true democracy, populists justify their attacks on pluralism and the institutional checks and balances that preserve it.

Populists claim to restore democracy by removing liberal constraints, but in doing so, they create conditions that undermine both liberalism and democracy.

The genius of liberal democracy lies in its attempt to balance these competing principles, allowing majorities to govern while protecting the rights of minorities and individuals. However, this balance is inherently fragile. When populists tip the scales too far toward majoritarianism, they reveal the contradictions at the heart of the system. Liberal institutions can appear elitist and disconnected, giving populists the ammunition they need to dismantle them.

Schmitt’s insights remind us that liberal democracy is always a work in progress—a delicate balance that requires constant vigilance to maintain. He would know: as an eventual Nazi, he helped tilt democracy toward illiberal ends. In this sense, the challenges posed by populist movements today are not new, but they underscore how easily the system’s internal tensions can be exploited to erode its foundations.

Democratic Backsliding: The Populist Playbook in Action

Once in government, many populists set about dismantling the pillars of liberal democracy. The process follows a predictable pattern, which should sound familiar to observers of Alberta politics:

Ignoring the Rule of Law

Populists erode the rule of law by interfering with judicial independence and introducing discriminatory legislation. Independent boards are stacked with loyalists or bypassed altogether, while laws target marginalized groups or political opponents. This creates a two-tier legal system where some citizens enjoy full rights while others are subjected to restrictions, undermining equality and justice.

Eliminating Checks and Balances

Populists view legislatures, courts, parliamentary officers, independent agencies, and other orders of government as obstacles to their agenda. They bypass legislative debate through strict party discipline and closure, dismiss constitutional constraints and other orders of government, replace watchdogs with loyalists, and centralize power by overriding municipal authority.

Undermining Electoral Integrity

Populists often attack the integrity of elections to tilt the playing field in their favor. Measures such as introducing restrictive voter ID laws, threatening to gerrymander districts, or outlawing vote tabulating machines cast doubt on the fairness of elections. These tactics weaken public trust in electoral systems while consolidating power for the ruling party.

Consolidating Power

Populist leaders frequently usurp authority from other institutions to tighten their grip on power. This includes undermining academic freedom by controlling university governance or silencing dissenting scholars. Similarly, tearing up the traditional public servant’s bargain—marginalizing civil servants in the policymaking process or replacing nonpartisan expertise with loyalists—turns the bureaucracy into an instrument of the ruling party.

Cronyism

By hollowing out institutions and prioritizing loyalty over competence, populists create fertile ground for cronyism. Populists thrive on a narrative of “cleaning house” and dismantling elite networks, but they often replace these networks with their own. Key government positions are awarded based on political allegiance rather than expertise, ensuring loyalty but weakening governance. Public resources are redirected to allies through key appointments, lucrative contracts, quid pro quo dealings, pay to play rules, or pork-barrel spending, with little regard for accountability.

To accomplish all of this, populists conflate their party’s interests with “the people’s,” justifying actions that enrich themselves or their supporters. Scandals are reframed as attacks by the enemy, further polarizing public discourse and insulating leaders from accountability. In this way, populist regimes often replicate or even exacerbate the corruption they claim to oppose.

From Populism to Authoritarianism

Left unchecked, populism’s erosion of pluralism creates an environment where dissent is suppressed, and loyalty to the regime is rewarded. Critics clam up for fear of retribution. Independent institutions crumble, elections lose legitimacy, and public trust erodes.

What begins as a promise to restore power to the people ends as a system where power is concentrated in the hands of a few. Democracy’s form remains, but its modern substance—pluralism, accountability, and individual rights—is gutted. If left unabated, this trajectory leads not just to authoritarianism but to a society defined by fear, exclusion, and inequality (a recipe for the sort of fascism Schmitt helped establish in Germany).

---

As my daughter learns about ancient and modern forms of governance, her choice of liberal democracy over pre-modern forms says a lot about how far we’ve come—and what’s at stake. Her recognition of the value of inclusion and rights reminds us that democracy is more than just majority rule. It’s a system that thrives when it protects and respects diverse voices. Watching her grapple with these ideas offers hope, but also a reminder: the principles that underpin our democracy can’t be taken for granted.

Here’s hoping more United Conservatives ponder these parts of their new curriculum as much as my family has this weekend.