| You're absolutely right that the "peacemaker" in situations like this should be a secret, anonymous, properly held elections. However, resigning every time there is a protest, even a spectacular one, is obviously not an option for any democraticaly elected governement. Pick a cause you defend, and a right you'd want to preserve ; browse recent history to find out when was the last time a massive protest was held by people with the opposite side of view. Western democracies are warry of calling elections for anything but picking representatives. More direct forms of democracy would clearly help in this case. The current scenario is that the elected governement takes harsh measure, and the people will have to wait and vote them out of office. (Which, I believe, is a fundamental difference between most western democracy and more autocratic regimes - I'm ready to reevaluate that when there is suspense again in a russian / NK / china election.) This is _very_ unfortunate for governements that have been recently elected and have strong parlementary majorities. I wonder if a better "better scenario" in such crisis would be to have different level of population oversight, depending on the time scale of measures. As in: first, the elected governement takes extraordinary measures, with relatively free reign for short period of times (days / weeks.) "Extraordinary time calling for extraordinary measures", etc... Than, parlimentary oversight kicks in, to prolong measures in the "months" scale (I'm one of those annoying people who believe representatives have a role in democracy. Sorry.) Than, referendum / votations need to occur for anything longer than a few months. It would not "solve" the issue - because, a vaccine mandate might very well have been agreed by referendum in Canada, and truckers would _still_ have blocked roads. But in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have this process. |