I really have no idea what I should think or feel about everything going on. What I do feel is confused and lost. Particularly because I thought I understood what the state of things was. I thought I understood what the majority of people wanted. The “silent majority” as my father used to call them. Now, I’m not so sure.
Let’s start with the basics here; what is democracy? Well, the etymology can help us here. Democracy comes from the greek “dêmos” and “krátos.” “Dêmos” translates to people or citizens, while “krátos” translates to rule or strength. Putting them together, you get an idea of people ruling, or the strength of a community coming from the people. In these modern times, we have the idea of governing by the people or the citizens. That is, it is the people who collectively come together to decide the rules and laws that ought to govern the community as a whole.
So it seems to suggest that in democracy, you have a group of people who somehow come to agreement regarding the ways in which they coexist among one another. This in contrast to other situations where perhaps a small subsection of the group is in charge while the remainder simply submit to the subsection’s authority (oligarchy), or perhaps the subsection is simply a lone individual that everyone else submits to (dictatorship). In a democracy, everyone has a say in how things will be in the community as a whole.
In nations such as the United States or Canada, it is believed that the society is organized as a democracy. In Canada, individuals exercise their freedom by voting representatives, who in turn will vote other representatives, who will ultimately speak on behalf of all the people in Canada. Thus, in some ways it seems like an individual is making decisions while everyone else is expected to submit, but the manner in which the nation is organized, that top level representative has to be re-elected regularly in order to affirm that they are continuing to appropriately represent the people who elected them. In this way, it is understood that the representatives are always working in the interests of the people as a whole.
It is true that from time to time there will be representatives who abuse the power they are given by the people they are meant to represent. Sometimes with malicious intent. But that is supposed to be the exception, and not the rule. In general, representatives try to actually represent their constituents and further the constituents’ projects. But how can we be sure?
This is where an aspect of democracy is uncovered that I believe is not always recognized, especially by the very same people who are claiming to support democracy. In any democracy, there are many people with many differing opinions and ideas regarding how things should be done. There are many different projects that will be proposed, all with different priorities and different levels of importance. If I represent 100 people, then I have to somehow decide which of the 100 projects they all wish me to progress to actualize. I may be able to push forward several projects, but it is unlikely I can actualize all 100. Multiply this issue to the size of Canada, where there are about 38 million people, with 38 million different projects and ideas about what should be done.
Almost certainly you know how such things are decided: the majority rules. That is, those participants in the democratic process come together to vote on which projects ought to be undertaken. Those projects who have the greatest support are actualized. Those projects that are not supported sufficiently are not. If one person in 38 million wishes a particular project be undertaken, while the remainder do not, clearly the democratic group will decide against following through with such a project.
In these situations, where a minority of the population wishes a particular project be undertaken and are defeated by a vote from the majority, what ought the minority do? As one who often finds himself among the minority, it is my understanding that I have to simply suck it up and move on. That is, my desired projects are not to be undertaken. I may spend some time trying to convince others to take up my projects. I can use strategies such as protest to increase the awareness of my desired projects, utilizing appeals to emotion to try and sway others. But if, in the end, those who support my projects still only represent a minority, ultimately, I need to simply let it go and move on.
This is how I necessarily must behave. If I support the idea of democracy, I have to accept the fact that I will not always get what I want. In fact, as I am a part of a rather large community, it is very likely that I will rarely get what I want. Most of the time, I will have to simply accept the opinions of others and go along with them. As a single individual among millions, my opinions and desires do not count for very much.
This brings me to this whole “freedom convoy” business. The challenge I am having presently is that it is my understanding that the individuals who are participating in this so-called protest are representing a minority of the whole population. For example, their alleged primary point of concern is that they are against vaccine mandates, especially for truckers who are primarily responsible for maintaining the supply chains between Canada and the United States. If the information I have uncovered is to be believed, upwards of 90% of those truckers are fully vaccinated and continuing to (try to) do their jobs. Thus, the protesters, assuming they represent those truckers who do not support the vaccine mandate, are representing about 10% of the truckers in question. Basic math tells us that 10% is much, much less than 90%, and thus constitutes a minority.
Don’t get me wrong. As they represent a minority, within the laws and rules we have set out in our democratic society, they are definitely entitled to protest and attempt to sway to their side those who presently do not agree with them. The problem is that they have long since already made this point and presented their case (or at least had the opportunity to). So why are they still “protesting?” Worse, why have they escalated their “protest” to include further disruption of the very same supply chain that they claim the vaccine mandates are distrupting?
As anyone who has been following this story should already be aware, this “freedom convoy” is clearly about much, much more than simply vaccine mandates for truckers. In fact, it seems like the movement itself is distracted with hundreds, and possibly thousands, of other intentions and projects. When these “protesters” are waving American confederate flags, nazi flags, and banners supporting their desired candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election, putting aside my level of agreement or disagreement with them, this tells me that their intentions are far more diverse than simply concerns about vaccinating truckers.
This is where I would like to point out what I’ve been talking about regarding democracy and about accepting the decisions of the majority. In this case, it seems to me, the majority of people in Canada support vaccine mandates. It seems to me that the majority of Canadians recognize the significance of supporting their healthcare system in trying to keep as many people safe as possible during a pandemic. It seems to be that the majority support the idea that a vaccine mandate is probably a good thing. The “freedom convoy” has made their point, and they’ve presented their side of this issue. Why the hell are they still at it? And why are they escalating their disruptive behavior? Are they not actually in support of democracy, in contradiction to what they seem to be shouting about?
Many of them suggest their primary interest is in “freedom.” But who’s freedom? They are disrupting the freedoms of all sorts of other individuals with their actions. They are disrupting the supply chains and making it far more challenging for the rest of Canadians to go about their lives. I can promise that those who’s lives have been disrupted do not believe their freedom is being supported; I imagine they believe their freedom is being striped and infringed upon. Is it the “freedom” of the “protesters” that the “protesters” are concerned about? Once again, this will represent a minority, and once again this ought to be dropped.
I do NOT support the “freedom” of the “protesters” whatsoever, primarily as they have outright dismissed and attempted to crush my own. I support the authorities in doing whatever actions they deem necessary to put an end to this ridiculousness and allow the majority of Canadians to attempt to return to some semblance of normalcy.