Could it happen here?
I (we – hello to my two readers!) came of age in an era when the present we're now living would have been completely unimaginable. I mean, I struggled to imagine it as late as Election Day 2016. But the structure of the US government is part of what brought us here. The administration runs roughshod over the Constitution, but it, and the broader Republican project of the last few decades, also game the Constitution's provisions to seek raw power, like with the rightward lurch in interpreting the Second Amendment.
How can a constitution guard against something like this? How would Canada's constitution stack up, and what can the US experience illuminate about Canada's susceptibility to a populist-demagogue-hard-slide-to-fascism takeover?
Canada's constitution is... a little hard to pin down. It includes two Acts, one from 1867 and one from 1980; it draws on the sovereignty and "honour" of the British Crown in weird ways; it has unwritten and unenforceable parts – and it works mostly pretty well. It's distinctly weighted in favor of legislatures compared to the US system. There are a number of mechanisms and canons of interpretation that allow the popular will, as expressed through Parliament and provincial legislatures, to supersede individual rights. The rights of First Nations and Métis people are recognized as outside of and coequal with Western law (albeit with plenty of paternalism in practice). The provinces have more power than US states on many fronts, which is to say the federal government is comparatively weaker.
Canada has a three-branch system of government, of course, but its approach to constituting the executive branch (under the Westminster system, mmyyeeessss) is different. Cabinet and the Prime Minister are made up of members of parliament of the governing party. The "government" that they "form" is an outgrowth of the legislative branch rather than a separate piece of structure. Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau's public drama earlier this year, sandwiched by their respective resignations, suggested that the ability of a member of cabinet to maneuver around their boss is bolstered by their stature as a legislator. If Marco Rubio resigned to spur an internal revolt he'd simply be replaced with Steven "Steve Miller Ban" Miller and fade into oblivion.
Canada also has a multi-party system that seemingly, over the years, has helped it to avoid the sort of gridlock-by-stunt that has taken over US congressional processes. The NDP is back on its heels these days, largely due to Jagmeet Singh simping for Drake, but the Bloc Quebecois can be reliably counted on to act curmudgeonly, and the Greens exist, all of which help temper the bullshit of the Conservatives and the Liberals. Canadians will be the first to tell you how dysfunctional things are here, but you don't see the same gamesmanship of a two-party system.
Supreme Court jurisprudence in Canada bears plenty in common with the US on the merits, but the justices – and all federal court judges – are not appointed for life. Instead they have mandatory retirement at age 75. Can you freaking imagine? The role of the US Supreme Court in bringing about the current horror show can't be overstated, going back to Merrick Garland (okay, going back to Bush v. Gore), and taking away most of the contingencies of age/ego/looming demise would be such a relief.
You can find an election fundraising scandal here and there in Canada but the system is not built on black money, corporate personhood, and chainsaw-wielding K-heads to quite the same degree.
My take is that if an authoritarian takeover were to happen in Canada, it would somehow have to take a more parliamentary form. But I do think one of the broad lessons of the situation unfolding in the US is to never doubt that a small, malign group of people acting in bad faith and naked power-grabs can topple even a purportedly checked and balanced system of government.
