Canada

It begs the question be asked, 'Can democracy survive in a multicultural society, or can democracy only exist in a homogeneous society?' And a supplemental question, 'Can democracy in a multicultural society compete and prosper when confronted by democracy in a homogeneous society?'

A lot has been said about 'white elitism' and 'white entitlement' with reference to the decline of democracy in Western society. However, this misses the point. American 'democracy' (and indeed the beginnings of democracy in Britain) began as a system based on homogeneity. The original voters list in America was limited to white male landowners who believed in God. Freedom of religion originally meant 'the freedom to worship God in the religion of your choice'. It was assumed that this restricted group of voters had the same goal, they just differed in how to achieve it. Under this system, 'democracy' was seen as a way to determine the path, not the destination. (Yes, this is over-simplistic, as even at the time that American statehood began there was a North-South divide, with each faction having a different destination in mind, but the destinations were variations on which entitled male landowner faction would dominate).

But as the voters list expanded in scope (more and more groups were added - females, non-whites, renters, indigent populations), the 'destination' was no longer homogeneous. Each faction that was added came with a divergent goal, and the original faction could no longer guarantee that democracy would just determine the path, not the destination.

Today, Western society now represents such a huge divergence of factions, with greatly divergent destinations, that the main thrust of 'democratic' elections is now to determine the characteristics of the destination, not just the pathway to achieve it. Unfortunately, many of these destinations are mutually exclusive of each other, and what we call democracy has now become a battle between entrenched positions, winner-take-all.

But it will be interesting to see how the global situation evolves.

The West does not have exclusive rights to elitism and entitlement, just the rights to 'white male' elitism and entitlement. Let us not forget that there are other locusts of power in the world, and many are still primarily homogeneous societies, with their own sense of (definitely not 'white') elitism and entitlement. Further, with modern weapons systems, they are becoming militarily powerful loci of entitlement.

China, for instance, is an extremely homogeneous society, with a growing sense of Chinese entitlement, that is getting stronger every passing year. Rather than growing more diverse, the Chinese society is actually growing more unified and consolidated in their sense of destination. Democracy in China is very alive and well, contrary to Western public opinion. It is just that they are not voting to determine the destination so much as they are voting to select the path. China, in fact, does not have a 'one party' system, so much as they have a 'no party' system. With a common destination, no need to differentiate by 'party' but by 'path'. It begs the question be asked, 'Is the rise of China's power and the decline of American influence due to the homogeneity, and thus the singular nature and the goal directedness, of the Chinese society?' That is, Chinese society today is driven by a singular common societal goal and the entire resources of the state are directed towards achieving this goal; whereas the concept of democracy in the West has evolved into trying to implement a divergent set of goals, depending on who wins the election. Since the goals of each faction have become so mutually exclusive, whatever progress is achieved by one party in one election cycle is destroyed by the next party in the next election cycle.

This century will be defined by this conflict between and within world political systems and nation states regarding the degree of homogeneity versus diversity of their society, and the nature of their democracy. I suspect that the result will be a shift in the nature of statehood towards a world of smaller, but more homogeneous, states where democracy determines the path, not the destination. Trump is not the cause, but the symptom, of this clash.

I believe America's future can only be sustained when America breaks up into two or more nations, each progressing towards their own mutually exclusive destination. How Canada evolves will be determined by whether or not Canada can define its own workable common destination, and shape manageable power sharing schemes between federal, provincial, and municipal jurisdictions to allow different paths towards this common destination.