Social movements are strange beasts. They rise up seemingly spontaneously and often disappear as quickly as they emerged. Across Canada we are witness to just such a movement, the so-called ‘Freedom Convoy’, with the long term fuel for its fire being the pandemic and the short term spark setting the whole thing off being government’s waffling on vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers. Clearly, the world is tired of the pandemic. The direct costs in lives lost and irreparably harmed, of livelihoods shattered and people shaken physically, emotionally and financially to their knees, are undeniable. While the world’s one percent have adapted and often profited, and a broad swath of public and private middle to upper-middle class folks have held steady, hundreds of millions of poor, elderly and immune-compromised people — the vast majority of whom are people of colour, generally located in the Global South and in the poorer neighborhoods of the Global North — have no choice other than to venture out into a virus-infected world to try to eke out a living. While governments tell them to stay home, this is a luxury they do not have.
There is a great deal of sympathy across not only Canada, but the world, for the Freedom Convoy’s central demand of an end to vaccine mandates. It is no great insight to say that everyone is fed up with the current situation. As with other broad-based, generally-focused social movements like #OccupyWallStreet, so too does the Freedom Convoy suffer from setting forth demands that are too broad across categories that are too diffuse for rapid treatment in public policy. Where #Occupy was concerned, while many of us do not like the effects of neoliberal globalization, calling for an end to it is just not going to happen any time soon. Similarly, calling for not only an end to vaccine mandates but to a wide array of other things such as the overthrow of a democratically-elected government are in the first instance unreasonable and in the second instance a non-starter. It just ain’t gonna happen.
In the parlance of conflict resolution, the Freedom Convoy supporters have taken a position: end all restrictions related to collectively dealing with Covid-19. The confrontational and vituperative approach taken by the so-called ‘leadership’ has forced the government to take a diametrically opposed position, i.e. no we will not. Put differently, this is a mandate/no mandate, science/no science stand-off. What is to be done?
One thing that must not be done is for the government of Canada to present a disunited position in relation to the protests. They must show a united front. Unfortunately, what we have been witness to recently is anything but united, with the Conservative Party seeking to score political points rather than put forward any ‘progressive’ ideas in support of a resolution. A second thing that must not be done is to make this crisis only about the protesters, to demonize them, to label them as a ‘lunatic fringe’. Should the governments (Federal, Municipal, Provincial) successfully put an end to these protests, this does not mean that the issue has somehow been resolved. To the contrary, barring a miraculous end to the pandemic, people motivated to march will march again.
What must be done is for the Liberal government to engage in a two directional conversation: in one direction, there must be serious consideration given to the implications of a movement temporarily dispersed but a broader issue — endless restrictions on personal freedoms — remaining unresolved. What is the way ahead? As I said earlier, this conversation must be intra-governmental aiming at consensus. In the other direction, the government must engage with the citizenry — all citizens — regarding options for moving forward in light of a shape-shifting virus. The government cannot hide behind ‘the science’ — the issue at hand is as much emotional as it is rational.
How to do this? Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) counsels getting past the hard positions taken (i.e. no mandate vs mandate) to identify the interests driving people’s actions in support of a particular position. I don’t believe the government is wedded to its vaccine mandate position. What we have seen is a science-based step-wise approach to ‘reopening’. Changing circumstances will lead to changing policy positions. On the Freedom Convoy side, the interests behind the common position are diverse. For most, the interest grows out of people’s needs. The need to make a living and live a life perceived to be worth living. While a significant percentage may have latched on to the movement in pursuit of narrower — and possibly nefarious — interests, it is imperative that the government not paint the movement with this broad brush. People are hurting and want to be heard.
But how to find out what people’s specific interests are? Public engagement is the most obvious way. And by public engagement, I do not mean Justin Trudeau going out to run ‘town halls’. This must be a whole of government approach, a united front, where we meet in public spaces real and virtual to take stock of the personal and collective costs of both the pandemic and public policies taken in the honourable attempt to end the health crisis. Sometimes facilitators are brought in, agreed to by all sides as a stalwart individual or representative of an organization that is widely regarded as capable of having the greater public interest at heart. Bishop Desmond Tutu served this function in post-apartheid South Africa during its Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Is there a Canadian equivalent?
It is unrealistic to think that this will be easily resolved. It is imperative that the government resist the urge to demonize protesters. Arrest them for public mischief, sure, no problem. They were warned. They should know that their actions have repercussions, that their ‘family friendly’ protest harmed the livelihoods of millions. While social movements often simply dissipate, those that survive do so because they find leaders, funds, and get organized. The right to organize is a hallmark of democracy. But it seems to me that we need to get out in front of this. After all, the KKK and the Proud Boys are civil society organizations.
It is unrealistic to think that this will be easily resolved. It is imperative that the government resist the urge to demonize protesters. Arrest them for public mischief, sure, no problem. They were warned. They should know that their actions have repercussions, that their ‘family friendly’ protest harmed the livelihoods of millions. While social movements often simply dissipate, those that survive do so because they find leaders, funds, and get organized. The right to organize is a hallmark of democracy. But it seems to me that we need to get out in front of this. After all, the KKK and the Proud Boys are civil society organizations.
Desperate times require desperate measures. In this case, the most desperate measure that is needed is that the leaders of the various parties sitting in the House of Commons, put away their knives and make peace among themselves. It’s the necessary first step to a very serious cross-Canada conversation.
