Liberal Democracy Hannah Moulds Page 1 of 5

Is a Liberal Democracy Worth it?

June 10th

2010Humanities 30-1 Position Paper

Democracy is something that is valued around the world, and a major aspect of this type

of government is the rights and freedoms of the citizens. Many people are torn when it comes

to the extent in which they would go to protect this democratic society. So the real question is

what would it take for you to give up your rights? If we do not suspend the rights and freedoms

of the citizens, we have a chance of completely losing all of the principles of liberalism that

democracy is based upon. There are conditions that must be met in order for democracy to be

protected. If these conditions are not met, then there is a risk of losing a democratic society all

together. It is not an easy decision to take away such an essential part of democracy, which is

why the government must make informed and responsible decisions when it comes to these

situations. Suspending rights and freedoms should only be done in times of high crisis, and only

when it puts everyone at risk. This response to crisis must not only benefit the society, but also

all of the citizens within the democracy. In the source, it states that in a crisis these rights may

be temporarily suspended, this is essential to success. If all of these conditions are met, then a

liberal democracy can be preserved and the rights and freedoms of the citizens can then be

reinstated.

An example that violates the conditions that are necessary to protect democracy was in

Nazi Germany prior to World War II, when Hitler and the Nazi Party came into power. Hitler

issued the Enabling Act which was used to oppose any other party from coming into power; this

was how Germany became a one-party state. This act also allowed Hitler to pass legislation

without the approval of the Reichstag (representative of the German people). The people’s loss

of power in the government resulted in a dictatorship. The Enabling Act was only supposed to

be intact for four years, but since there was no opposing power against Hitler, he was able to

implement this act passed its four year period. This crisis not only violated the temporary

section of conditions, but this act was also meant to demoralize the rights and freedoms of all

the German citizens. For many people at this time who were considered to be an “undesirable”

by Hitler and the Nazi’s, had their rights and freedoms completely revoked and were often

killed. An appropriate time in which the rights and freedoms of citizens were suspended was

when the War Measures Act was introduced into Canadian society after World War One.

After Canada’s involvement in World War One, the War Measures Act was implemented

when a crisis occurred. In order for the use of this act to be justified, the government had to

come up with some reasons for implementing this act; it had to be for the good of society, to

protect, retain, or secure other aspects of liberalism, and it must be justified due to the threat

and severity of the situation. This act allowed the federal government to limit, suspend, and

restrict the rights, freedoms, and other basic principles of liberalism, of Canadian citizens and

immigrants, especially the Japanese. Other immigrants had their rights suppressed, but the

main focus of the Canadian government was the people who were Japanese, had Japanese

heritage, or even appearance. These people had their property repossessed and their

possessions taken away. The Canadian government justified their decision to use the War

Measures Act by informing the population that these people were a threat to national security.

The government became very conscientious when it came to airport security. This turned out to

be a responsible decision because of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers in New

York on September 11th, 2001. It is justified for the government to decrease the rights and

freedoms of the citizens as well as the immigrants in an airport setting because it allows for a

safer environment and decreases the possibility of major risks that could harm the people,

allowing people to pursue other rights and freedoms. The suspension of the citizens and

immigrants rights in these situations was essential for Canada to protect our society, as well as

our liberal democracy. Since Canada has only implemented the WMA a few times in our history,

it can be considered a temporary solution to a high crisis situation.

In the 1960’s, Canada and the rest of the world were going through major political,

social, and cultural changes. These changed prompted a more individualist ideology throughout

the Canadian population. The Quebecois of Canada felt that they were treated unfairly and felt

that their language and culture should have more equal opportunity within the country. A

group within the Quebecois called the Quebec Liberation Front (FLQ), resorted to violence and

terrorism to find independence for Quebec. The Canadian government’s response to this

outrage was to imprison anyone who was a member or were suspected to be in this group,

invoking the War Measures Act for the third and final time. This event was controversial

because some felt that the government acted out on limited information. The president and the

time, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, stated that even though people were unhappy with this response,

the society must use every means to defend against an emergency in order to maintain law and

order in the society. To prevent outrage from the Canadian people, the government

implemented the Emergency Act. This act was a safeguard to protect the rights of the citizens,

but obligated the government to specify to which part or parts of the country the emergency

measures apply. This would prevent people from taking advantage of the temporary removal of

rights and freedoms, but also protecting people from any danger to their life or property, or any

social disruption.

Rejection of liberalism is sometimes justified, but it all depends on whether certain

conditions are met. If it is necessary for a stable democracy, people should be willing to

temporarily suppress their rights. The government must be responsible when choosing whether

or not the situation is a high risk to the society and its citizens. When these conditions are not

met, it can lead to dictatorship, the complete loss of liberalism, as we saw in Germany. By using

the War Measures Act in Canada, we were able to temporarily suppress the rights of

immigrants and citizen, which lead to higher security, allowing for people to pursue other rights

and freedoms. The Emergency Act was implemented because suppressing the rights and

freedoms of the citizens became too broad, and the government needed to make more specific

decisions as to who these emergency measures applied to. Suppressing rights will always be a

controversial situation. We rely on the responsible decisions of our government, but as an

individual we must ask ourselves, would I give up my rights and freedoms in order to protect

the liberal democracy our society values so much?