The Mark 2010

We need a public inquiry into the Toronto G20, and we need to find ways to make future forums more democratic and participatory.

In just over three weeks since the last G20 delegation limousine headed to Pearson Airport, the quiet has not completely returned to Toronto. The constellation points of protest, free speech, free assembly, arrests, protocols, and costs vs. benefits continue to spark debate. Calls for an independent public inquiry continue to be heard on the streets, in blogs aplenty, and in the better broadsheets and websites. A wiser federal government would embrace the call for an inquiry, something beyond the narrow scope of the announced Toronto Police Services inquiry that is currently wrestling with its terms of reference and selection of who will head its efforts. From a cynical perspective, it might shift the lingering target of civil malaise to the inquiry itself. More seriously, such an inquiry is well within the Canadian tradition and could provide much needed room for factual analysis and policy review.

It would serve to create a better legacy for what was too often a festival of error that largely distracted from substantive discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the G20 itself – such things as the late and badly explained apparent non-extension and confused application of the “Public Works Protection Act”; the disappointing lack of loud and clear advance statements from leaders of the legitimate protest, such as the Ontario Federation of Labour, that they would not tolerate, accept, or in any way condone violence; and the unaddressed calls for “war” from John Clarke and the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), perhaps inadvertently providing comfort to the Black Bloc’s reductionist and irresponsible embrace of the "propaganda of the deed."

The knowledge that friends of mine were among those held on June 27 for several hours was very disturbing. These were apolitical political people caught up in the Queen and Spadina "arrests" as they were trying to go west to eat and drink. This contrasted with my observation of individual police officers conducting themselves professionally and appropriately, which again contrasted with the many reports of police overreach.

Whether it was incompetence that led the extremely well-funded police presence to seemingly underreact, and then overreact, or if it was a predetermined strategy, as Judy Rebick suggested shortly after the event on Rabble.ca, the decision of the Toronto Police Services Board for an independent inquiry is welcome but not sufficient. Many of us want to know why letting cars burn and shop windows be smashed more than once could not have been avoided. Many of us want to understand the logic of identifying and arresting allegedly violent protesters by reigning in, detaining, or arresting large groups that held passers-by and non-violent demonstrators, not to mention members of the media. There may be valid explanations. Truth, as far as one can claim to reach it, is often three-sided, but an inquiry can expose the elements of decision-making and the application of those decisions.

However, the necessarily narrow scope of the Toronto Police Services Board inquiry will not allow us to understand the full scope of the G20 protest and arrest schema as an event in itself and as a failure to provide political dialogue and encourage, rather than contain, legitimate protest. A full federal commission of inquiry with robust terms of reference and commensurate budget would provide the scope to look at both the facts and the policy implications of the how the G20 was managed. Even so, such an inquiry will not satisfy everyone, given that its mandate is granted by cabinet and its work plan and budget are subject to approval by the Privy Council. But given the reality of the current political climate and the commitment of the prime minister to unalloyed support of how the G20 was conducted, it is unlikely such an inquiry will be called.

And what of the future of the G20 itself? This question is also an urgent and serious one, but one that would be outside the scope of even a robust federal commission of inquiry. Some of the complaints heard about the summit in recent weeks appear akin to the conspiracy theories promoted about the UN being the seat of some new world order conspiracy. As with the UN, Canada arguably played a significant role in the creation of the G20. It was famously championed by Paul Martin precisely to expand the circle of international economic and political dialogue beyond the G8 and to bring China, Brazil, et al into the that dialogue. We have been a multilateral country par excellence, and our participation in the G20 is consistent with this.

Having "developing" (our language needs to adapt) in the room with the "West" is something that has been debated over and argued for since the 1970s. The G20 is rife with imperfection (the underrepresentation of Africa being a key example), and not all the governments are democratically elected (though many are: Turkey, India, Brazil); its existence recognizes the change in the configuration of global power.

But the G20, like any other international body, from the UN through the range of acronyms, is open to failure, to wasted opportunities, to being a wall, not a bridge. One of the great missed opportunities – one that is not window dressing but essential to address the legitimation deficit in globalization – was the absence of any meaningful ways and means to integrate civil society and NGOs with the government-to-government process.

Peaceful and imaginative acts of protest are indeed part of the warp and weave of any democracy, but they are not the dialogue, except in its crudest sense. Rather than wanting the G20 out or Canada to be out of the G20, we should want in. Especially as we are citizens of a globally attuned, diverse country with a history of internationalism. We should suggest and demand ways to ensure civil society has a role to play in forums such as the G20. This is tied with the need to rekindle the connection between our formal structures of democracy in Canada and our burgeoning informal civil society structures. It is not a choice of voting versus protesting, dialogue versus an exchange of sound bites. It will require an embrace of all the legitimate means of political discourse and action.

It's arguably in the interests of many, if not all, of the G20 countries to expand the conversation and to do so in a way that is compatible with reasonable security considerations that fully permit and encourage peaceful protest. In seeking to make a more democratic and participatory G20, we may also wish to reconsider the calls to not have such events in cities like Toronto. A potential broadening of dialogue is likely not best served by having government leaders ensconced in a remote resort, let alone the logistical challenges of staging even a trimmed-down G20 in a location that lacks the infrastructure to host it.

Naturally, there will be resistance to this at the governmental level. There may be too on the “civil society” side, protest being easier than governance. It will require a concerted effort with critical and practical thinking to present workable models of how we can democratize our global institutions. Retreating to localism and rejecting internationalism or globalization is reactionary, not progressive. As engaged Torontonians, Canadians, and citizens, we should demand the democratization of our global organizations along with the reinvigoration of our national and local democratic institutions. Making these demands will entail our participation, not simply our opposition; our best ideas, not just our best slogans.