Fact Check Me: Winning Isn’t Permission
Democracy was never supposed to mean one side wins and the other shuts up.
My biggest problem with politics today
is that parties treat winning an election
like it means the public endorsed
every single thing they believe.
As if scraping together enough votes
to beat the other guy
suddenly becomes carte blanche
to reshape the country in your image.
And we attack each other the same way.
If your party wins,
you act like your worldview has been validated.
If your party loses,
you act like the country has lost its mind.
Everything becomes absolute.
No nuance.
No compromise.
No room for disagreement.
Just: “We won. Shut up.” Or: “They won. We’re doomed.”
But politics in Canada
didn’t always feel like that.
There used to be more understanding
that governing meant balancing your beliefs
with the will of the people.
Take Stephen Harper.
Harper held personal views
on issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights
that clearly did not align
with the broader will of the country.
And what did he do?
He largely left those issues alone.
Sure,
there may have been quiet efforts
to shift opinion here and there.
And maybe part of that restraint
was political survival—
touching those issues directly
would have been suicide.
But I’d like to think
at some level
he understood something important:
That leadership sometimes means
putting your own convictions aside
when the people you serve
have spoken clearly.
That just because you believe something
doesn’t mean the country gave you permission
to force it through.
That’s what governing is supposed to be.
Not ruling.
Not imposing.
Not using every victory
to push every hidden agenda.
It’s stewardship.
It’s recognizing that an election
is not a declaration of ideological purity.
It simply means: “Of the options available,
more people trusted you
to steer the ship.”
That’s it.
Not that they love every idea you have.
Not that they worship your platform.
Not that they agree with your worldview
top to bottom.
Just that, for now,
they trust you most.
And politicians have forgotten that.
They get in power
and immediately behave like the public said, “Yes, please—implement your entire manifesto,
rewrite the culture,
and reshape society to match your values.”
No.
Most voters don’t vote that way.
Most people vote based on a handful of priorities.
The economy.
Healthcare.
Leadership style.
One or two major issues.
Very few people walk into a booth
thinking, “I fully endorse every policy and opinion
of this party from top to bottom.”
That’s fantasy.
And the truth is,
I don’t wish for the total demise
of the parties I don’t support.
Quite the opposite.
I want them strong.
I want them led by intelligent people
who can see issues from different angles—
not just partisan ones.
Because weak opposition
doesn’t strengthen democracy.
It weakens it.
Bad ideas don’t get challenged.
Lazy policy goes unchecked.
Leaders grow arrogant.
Governments stop defending their decisions.
And that’s dangerous
no matter who is in charge.
I’d love to see parties
working together more.
Holding each other accountable.
Allowed to disagree—
but more importantly,
allowed to agree.
Because not every compromise
is betrayal.
Not every agreement
is weakness.
Sometimes the best ideas
come when people stop worrying
about who gets credit
and start worrying
about what actually works.
Democracy was never meant
to be one side conquering the other.
It was supposed to be discussion.
Negotiation.
Compromise.
A constant balancing act
between competing visions
of how to move forward.
Winning should mean
you get the chance to lead—
not the right
to do whatever the hell you want.