In Canada, political administrations come and go. Some are painfully endured by citizens, while others pass swiftly, marked by prosperity and comfort. But due to the fast-paced nature of modern politics, we seldom take the time to reflect on past administrations. Instead, we become absorbed in the immediacy of current events.As citizens of a democratic nation, however, it’s vital to periodically look back and evaluate our recent governments from a variety of perspectives. Some might call this a productive, sober second thought. Others might dismiss it as mere Monday-morning quarterbacking. Regardless, civic responsibility demands that we examine our recent political ecosystems through diverse analytical lenses.As our wonderful postmodern academic contemporaries in the intelligentsia have taught us, there’s value in applying multiple frameworks to reshape how we interpret events. In that spirit, what if we resisted framing Justin Trudeau’s tenure as nothing more than a shallow episode of virtue-signaling and performative "wokeism?” What if there’s more to it than that? .OLDCORN: Eby can’t veto a nation-building pipeline.What if, for instance, we applied an authoritarian lens to understand and reinterpret Trudeau’s time in office — whether his administration was aware of its trajectory or not?Rethinking Authoritarianism: Could It Happen Here?Authoritarianism is often viewed by Canadians as something foreign — something confined to other continents or relegated to the distant past. Canadians seem almost precognitively conditioned to recognize authoritarianism only at a distance. But what if we were more rigorous and adroit in assessing where authoritarianism could emerge? Might a politically astute citizen find it uncomfortably close — perhaps even in her own snowy backyard?.Before launching into an abecedarian analysis of the Trudeau era through an authoritarian lens, we need a foundational understanding of what authoritarianism actually entails. Admittedly, this is no easy task. The concept is dynamic and manifests iteratively in countless forms across complex socio-political landscapes. Still, we can distill it to a few key characteristics common to many authoritarian regimes.According to Britannica, authoritarianism is defined as “blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action.” Importantly, power in such systems is not always top-down. Authoritarian control often emerges through passive forms of social coercion — citizens who self-censor, remain silent on controversial issues, and comply with ideologically dominant norms out of fear or discomfort..PINDER: The dangerous myth of carbon dioxide.The result is a system where the regime's authority is mirrored and enacted by citizens themselves, as well as by institutions and ideologically captured organizations. In this way, the regime can maintain a public appearance of democracy and progress while quietly suppressing dissent and alternative viewpoints. As political theorist Adam Przeworski writes in Democracy and the Market, an “authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear, and economic prosperity.”Charismatic authoritarians rely on paradoxes: infringing on rights in the name of freedom, undermining democracy to “protect” it, collapsing the economy for the sake of economic justice, and stifling critical thought in the name of progress. They project the faults of their regime onto the opposition, using hyperbolic threats to distract while they commit the very infractions they claim to prevent..So — with this framework in mind — could Trudeau’s administration plausibly be interpreted as quasi-authoritarian?Let’s explore.Step One: Charismatic LeadershipAn authoritarian regime often begins with a charismatic leader. Trudeau rose to prominence in 2015 with a dose of hopeful populism aimed at unseating the Conservative government. He was young, good-looking, telegenic, superficially progressive, and fluent in political buzzwords. His political lineage only bolstered his appeal.None of this is inherently anti-democratic. But it formed the basis of a highly personalized political brand that inspired intense loyalty — an emotional attachment often detached from policy or substance. This is often the first ingredient in the formation of a quasi-authoritarian regime..BURTON: Alberta’s failing classrooms: The decline of education goes far beyond funding.Step Two: Control the Media and Knowledge ProductionTo solidify power, authoritarian regimes aim to control the flow of information — particularly via media and education.Trudeau’s relationship with the CBC, Canada’s public broadcaster, is illustrative. The CBC receives over $1 billion annually in federal funding and, under Trudeau’s leadership, consistently amplified his ideological narratives while marginalizing dissenting voices. According to Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s Manufacturing Consent, mass media often functions as a propaganda apparatus, not through overt coercion, but via market incentives, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship. A state-funded media outlet is even more susceptible to these tendencies..Despite branding itself as impartial, the CBC under Trudeau routinely promoted narratives favorable to the government while excluding contrarian perspectives. This selective amplification threatens the democratic function of journalism and mirrors the patterns found in state-aligned media across authoritarian contexts.Similarly, Canadian universities — traditionally bastions of free thought and dissent — have, under Trudeau’s ideological influence, increasingly enforced a narrow orthodoxy. The tragic story of Richard Bilkszto, a Toronto principal who died by suicide after being harassed for questioning DEI narratives during a workplace training session, is a disturbing example.Dissenters in academia and education have often faced professional and personal consequences, reinforcing ideological conformity and suppressing intellectual freedom..HORTON: Separate the art from the artist or don’t go.Step Three: Suppress Protest and Ostracize DissentAuthoritarian regimes often use crises as opportunities to shut down protests and criminalize dissent. Trudeau’s handling of COVID-19 exemplifies this tactic.By mandating vaccinations and enforcing harsh lockdowns, his administration created a two-tiered society — vaccinated versus unvaccinated — leading to job losses, social alienation, and restricted access to services. When the Freedom Convoy emerged — a peaceful, diverse protest against vaccine mandates — Trudeau responded by invoking emergency powers to freeze bank accounts, suspend insurance, and target cryptocurrency transfers.This heavy-handed response to civil disobedience was unprecedented in Canadian history and set a troubling precedent for state overreach. Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine describes how governments exploit crises to push through controversial measures and engage in “disaster capitalism” — but Klein, curiously, was silent when these tactics emerged on her own political turf..Further, legislation like Bill C-63 (the so-called “online harms bill”) poses a real threat to democratic freedoms. Under the guise of combating hate speech, it empowers citizens to report one another for potentially “offensive” content, opening the door to surveillance, censorship, and disproportionate punishment — hallmarks of authoritarian governance.Step Four: Deploy Inflammatory, Divisive RhetoricLanguage is one of the most powerful tools of authoritarian rule. Trudeau’s divisive rhetoric — particularly during the pandemic — helped reshape public discourse. On live television, he referred to unvaccinated Canadians as "racists" and "sexists" — a shocking level of vilification for citizens with differing views..FLETCHER: Another oil pipeline? Start a second gas pipeline first.This normalization of adversarial rhetoric fractures national unity and discourages nuanced debate. In authoritarian regimes, such language is used to dehumanize dissenters and justify increasingly extreme measures against them.Step Five: Undermine Electoral Fairness and Retain Power UnethicallyAuthoritarian leaders often manipulate electoral systems to entrench their power. Trudeau’s 2021 snap election, called just two years into his second term and amid the COVID-19 crisis, is an example.At a time when Canadians were locked down, financially dependent on the government, and preoccupied with survival, Trudeau called an election — effectively leveraging crisis conditions to secure four more years in power. Citizens who had been stripped of their autonomy and then financially supported by the state were hardly in a position to critically assess the government's record..This type of strategic timing may not be illegal, but it raises serious ethical questions about democratic fairness. Moreover, Trudeau’s continued tenure — despite losing the popular vote and facing mounting pressure from within his own party to step down — was preserved through a coalition with the NDP, further insulating him from accountability.Conclusion: Democracy Requires DissentMany Canadians have forgotten a fundamental truth: in a democracy, dissent is not just allowed — it’s essential. Citizens have a duty to question power, protest injustice, and speak up in defense of democratic norms..HILTON-O’BRIEN: The Teachers’ Union is coming for independent schools.As linguist and cultural commentator John McWhorter warns in Woke Racism, the greatest threat to democracy and freedom isn’t always from those at the top — it’s often the ordinary citizens who internalize propaganda and unconsciously think on behalf of the state.True democracy demands critical thought, active resistance, and the courage to voice unpopular opinions. It requires us to go beyond the safety of Habermasian coffee shop conversations and publicly say things like: "Hey Canada, we may have just lived through a quasi-authoritarian Trudeauian regime."
