Done with ‘division’
Dear Editor:
Somewhere along the way, politics has stopped feeling like people trying to build a country together but more like people trying to tear each other apart.
Every speech seems to need a villain. Every interview needs someone to blame. Every campaign seems to be built on convincing us all that the other side is dangerous, incompetent and beyond redemption.
And somehow, we all seem to be accepting this as normal behaviour and this seems to be happening everywhere.
Don’t get me wrong opposition is important. Governments should be challenged. Questions should be asked. Bad decisions should be exposed. Accountability is key. But there is a difference between holding people accountable and making division your entire personality.
It feels like too many politicians have discovered that outrage is easier than solutions. That anger spreads faster than hope. That pointing fingers gets more headlines than extending a hand.
Whether it’s Pierre Poilievre spending more time highlighting failures than explaining how he will help find solutions, or Doug Ford repeatedly facing criticism for decisions that many Ontarians believe favour powerful interests over ordinary people, or Danielle Smith walking a careful line while often speaking in ways that deepen provincial divides.
Leaders from every party in our country, from across the border and from across the globe are choosing political victories, deception and division over meaningful collaboration. The names almost don’t matter anymore because the strategy is the same.
1. Find an enemy.
2. Fuel the outrage.
3. Repeat.
Meanwhile, the people they were elected to serve are left standing in the middle, watching politicians score points while housing costs climb, healthcare struggles, affordability worsens, and communities become more divided than ever.
Imagine if our leaders spent half as much energy solving problems as they do finger pointing. If they measured success not by how loudly they defeated an opponent, but by how many lives they genuinely improved. Imagine if the goal wasn’t to divide us into teams, but to remind us that despite our differences, we’re all Canadians first.
Maybe some will think that’s naive. But maybe it’s exactly what we’ve all forgotten. Because history won’t remember who had the cleverest insult but it will remember who united, who built something that lasted.
I think we can and should expect better from our leaders but perhaps we should also expect better from ourselves.
Because politicians may write the speeches, but ultimately we decide whether we are okay with a divided country. Maybe, if enough of us stop applauding the outrage and start rewarding cooperation, we’ll remind our leaders why they were elected in the first place.
Not to divide a country, but to serve one. Something to think about.
Kristen Reilly,
Fergus