Earlier this week, I spoke to this provocative question at a panel discussion organized by Ontario NDP MPPs Chris Glover (Spadina-Fort York) and Jessica Bell (University-Rosedale). I provided a broad historical and comparative perspective – what academics are expected to do – and the other speakers gave their reactions to the Ford Government’s policies from the standpoint of municipal governance, primary and secondary education, indigenous peoples, and the legal system, in particular court challenges. They are outraged.

Democratic Backsliding

In recent years there is a growing body of research on democratic backsliding, namely the transformation of democratically elected governments into autocracies. Well-known scholars in this area include Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitzky (How Democracies Die, 2018) and Timothy Snyder (On Tyranny, 2017). The spectre that hangs over this research is the Nazi Party minority government that was elected in Weimar Germany in 1933 quickly becoming Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. In more recent years Turkey under Erdogan, Hungary under Orban, and Trump’s second administration are all instances of backsliding, with as-yet-unknown end states.

The literature on democratic backsliding pertains to national governments. I was extending it to apply to a subnational government, realizing that the latter lack many of the powers of the former, especially military force.

Drawing on Ziblatt and Levitzky and Snyder, (personal disclosure: with some mediation from ChatGPT) I outlined the following five characteristics of democratically backsliding governments.

• Rejecting the legitimacy of their political opponents (for example by referring to them as criminals and traitors)
• Encouraging their supporters to engage in violence against their opponents
• Changing the rules of the political system, so that they will never be defeated, and the jurisdiction becomes a one-party state
• Attacking and undermining institutions that are independent and can be critical of government, such as the media, the judiciary, and higher education, and
• Centralizing power in the political executive.

… In Ontario

Let’s consider the Ford Government in terms of these characteristics. It hasn’t demonized its political opponents or urged its followers – Ford Nation – to attack them. Ford has left the media alone, but his government has starved higher education. Ford has criticized “bleeding heart” judges and suggested that they be replaced by elected judges. However, the courts have considerable autonomy from the provincial government and Ontario’s three chief judges have denounced Ford’s remarks.

Where the democratic backsliding paradigm seems to fit the PC Party and the Ford Government most closely is in the stacking the electoral deck and seizing executive power. The Ford Government has rejected fixed election dates for majority governments in practice – the 2025 election – and now in legislation. It has increased allowable political donations. It constantly uses public money to fund ads (“It’s Happening Here”) that the Auditor General criticizes as political in nature. The Ford Government tried to restrict third-party advertising, but the Supreme Court ruled this initiative unconstitutional. Finally, the PC Party prevents its candidates from participating in all-candidate debates; they call this “unity of message,” I call it undemocratic.

There is a long list of ways the Ford Government has centralized power, including repealing municipal bylaws, a practice that Ford has used so frequently regarding Toronto (bicycle lanes, green roofs, road tolls, speed cameras, the size of Toronto City Council) that he has been accused of wanting to be the Mayor of Toronto as well as Premier. Minister’s Zoning Orders, Special Economic Zones in which other provincial legislation doesn’t apply, the use of the notwithstanding clause, putting school boards under trusteeship, replacing regional conservation authorities with one province-wide conservation authority are all examples of concentrating power over the province’s entire public sector in the hands of the provincial cabinet. Finally, the Ford Government has implemented a large legislative agenda of omnibus bills while reducing debate (“time allocation”) and the number of days the Legislature sits. The Americans have a term for this – “flooding the zone” – and it is standard practice for the second Trump Administration.

In response to the question the panel was asked to address, I would say that democracy isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. Ontario is still a democracy, but it is becoming less democratic.

What is to be Done?

Panelists were asked what to do about this sorry state of affairs. As a scholar, I could claim division of labour, that this isn’t my primary responsibility. Here I listened to the other speakers. I was impressed that the meeting, advertised only on the two MPP’s social media, drew 150 on a winter evening. The two responses I heard most often were political organizing to oppose egregious policies or decisions and undertaking court challenges. We were reminded that back-to-work legislation in the education sector (Bill 28) was withdrawn after the labour movement made a credible threat of a general strike; that legislation to cap public sector wages (Bill 128) was ruled unconstitutional in the provincial courts; and a backroom decision to allow land developers to cut into the Greenbelt was exposed, was defeated in the court of public opinion, and was reversed. As a result of this opposition the Ford Government has done less harm than it might have done.

The meeting was also intended to build support for Chris Glover’s private member’s bill to establish a commissioner for democratic rights. The Commissioner would be an officer of the Legislature who would monitor barriers to voting; review legislation, regulations, and governments with respect to their effect on democratic rights; review provincial interventions into local government; encourage democratic participation; and report on the state of democracy in Ontario. Of course, the bill will not pass. The Ford Government will argue that the state of democracy in Ontario is just fine and vote it down. Nonetheless, I give Mr. Glover credit for raising the issue in the Legislature.

These actions are intended, not only to reduce the harm done by individual Ford Government initiatives, but to build opposition to the Government itself to defeat it in the next election, which will come within four years from February 27, 2025 at a date the Ford Government considers most advantageous. In my recent post about election strategy, I concluded that if the Ford Government has the support of over 40 percent of the electorate it will be near-impossible for strategic voting or cooperation among the three progressive parties to defeat it. Perhaps the type of issue-by-issue opposition discussed at this panel will reduce public support for the Ford Government sufficiently these options become real possibilities.