There is a lot of praise for direct democracy lately. But our democracy is not direct, and it was never meant to be. Canada is a representative democracy at all orders of government.

To praise direct democracy as the purest form of democracy is to forget its chief criticism. Direct democracy puts the interests of the powerful, self-interested, and overbearing majority over the interests of the minority. It has been referred to as “tyranny of the majority.”

The methods that the powerful employ to be an “overbearing majority” are increasingly anti-democratic. Propaganda, misinformation, and tight control over the agenda that the public may weigh in on drive ideological divides under which rights end up being limited or, in extreme cases, eliminated. Surveys are torqued, referendum questions are drafted, and far from neutral, public hearings are set and information is tightly controlled, and any criticism is dismissed as “tin-foil hat conspiracy.”

Direct democracy is being weaponized by populist leaders to drive an us vs. them narrative. Neighbour vs. neighbour. Urban vs. rural. Blue vs. orange. Teacher vs. parent. Albertans vs. immigrants. Alberta vs. Canada.

It is happening locally. We’ve already seen Mayor Jeromy Farkas and city council praise members of the public for coming to speak at the public hearing on reversing parts of the housing strategy, suggesting this is “direct democracy in action.” On X, Councillor Johnston referred to public hearings as the “rawest form of democracy that… Canadians have at their disposal.”

Step aside, voting.

Speaking about his decision to repeal a part of the housing strategy without a plan for moving forward on housing affordability, Mayor Farkas said that no amount of “academic arguments could mitigate the frustration that people had about an 8plex going up next to their bungalow.”

When considering the praise for “direct democracy,” having an emotional majority demand action is exactly how the rights of the minority are taken away.

Political manipulation

Consider recall legislation. It was first introduced as an act of direct democracy to oust an elected leader in the middle of their term. Landon Johnston rode one of the original waves of recall when he initiated the Recall Gondek campaign. As the efforts to collect signatures intensified, it was later revealed that the recall efforts were connected to a plan to manipulate municipal elections to see more conservative councillors elected. Ties between the Recall Gondek campaign, the United Conservative Party, and even with Premier Smith were discovered. This exercise in direct democracy became a venue for propaganda and political manipulation.

Former Mayor Gondek once stated that Mr. Johnston may have had his campaign co-opted. But if the goal was to elect more conservative councillors, the plan worked. Landon Johnston is now the Ward 14 Councillor.

During her February address to Alberta, Premier Smith spoke on direct democracy regarding the upcoming UCP referendums:

“In closing, I want you to know how confident I am in the judgment of Albertans on these and other delicate issues. Although there are some politicians and commentators that fear direct democracy, such as referendums, I do not. I trust the judgment of Albertans,” she said.

“I know that, as a province, we will thoughtfully ponder, debate, and ultimately come to a wise decision on these questions that will benefit our families and our fellow Albertans for generations, just as we’ve always done.”

The belief in Albertans has waned greatly over the two months since that address. The judgment of Albertans to thoughtfully ponder has been replaced with a campaign that follows a clear playbook of public manipulation.

First, you set the agenda. Albertans will go to the polls on Oct. 19 on nine referendum questions.

Second, you shape the questions to ensure you get the answer you want. To quote Premier Smith: “We think we’ve done that initial culling of the questions to make sure that we found the ones that are likely to get majority support, but I’m asking them so that I can get a mandate.”

Third, you control the spread of information. The UCP has launched a new website, AlbertaReferendum2026.ca, and is spending unannounced amounts of tax dollars to “persuad[e] the public that this is the direction [they] want to go.”  

I say this rhetorically, but if the premier trusts the “judgment of Albertans,” then why does the Alberta government need a campaign to persuade Albertans to vote yes?

But a fair question remains: What happens if the will of the people doesn’t match the will of the elected officials? Truth is, it doesn’t really matter.

Acting in the best interest of citizens

Alberta doesn’t have a direct democracy; we have a representative democracy. In a representative democracy, our elected officials are supposed to have access to information and expertise that helps drive their decisions in the best interest of all constituents without stepping on the rights of the minority.

It is actually within the power of the governments to disregard the results of a “direct democracy” vote if they believe that the path they’ve chosen is in the best interests of Albertans. It is our responsibility to respond accordingly every four years at the ballot box to let them know whether we believe the government is using that power wisely.

In 2021, the City of Calgary had a referendum on putting fluoride back in our drinking water. While often referencing following the “will of the majority,” Coun. Andre Chabot voted no to fluoridating Calgary’s drinking water, against the wishes of his constituents. While I disagree with his vote, the system is designed to allow elected officials to make informed decisions even in the face of overwhelming support or opposition from their constituents.

It is from this same power that the previous council decided to enact policy reform to expand property rights and house more people in all communities, despite a majority of speakers at a public hearing asking us not to. That is the power of representative democracies – to decide based on the best available information what is in the best interests of the City. Chabot remains on council today. Our drinking water is fluoridated.

However, citing “direct democracy in action,” Calgarians have lost significant property rights, no matter how many “academic arguments” were made. Rights have been limited, but it was done so in the name of the “will of the people.”

Direct democracy is being weaponized by populist leaders to divide people, to shift responsibility for taking away the rights of your neighbours to you.

So, when asked what she will do if Albertans vote no at the polls on questions that will limit access to education, healthcare, and social services to many of your neighbours, Smith said:

“We’ll have to address what we do at that time.” In a representative democracy, she has every right to do so.

Just as Albertans have the responsibility to remember that in the next election.

(Just ask Daylight Saving Time.)