Democracy stands in the Balance

In an era where democracy is being tested around the world, nuanced and informed voices are more important than ever. I recently had the privilege of sitting down with Pierre, a seasoned investment banker, strategic advisor, and political insider from Montreal, Quebec. A longtime member of the Quebec Liberal Party’s policy commissions, Pierre has played a quiet but influential role in shaping conversations at the intersection of business, governance, and democratic values.

This interview, part of the Code and Culture series, shifts from technology toward the "culture" part of the equation — examining political landscapes, media, and our collective responsibility as citizens in an increasingly polarized world.

From Finance to Policy Influence

Pierre began his career in banking and strategy, working behind the scenes to advise both private firms and government entities. While he stayed largely apolitical in public due to the nature of his advisory roles, his political leanings were no secret in private circles.

“As one minister once told me, ‘The price of your private access is you have no public existence,’” Pierre recalled. “My role was always more about participating in policy behind the scenes rather than front-line politics.”

When he stepped away from those positions, Pierre joined the Quebec Liberal Party, not as a politician, but as a member of several key committees, helping the party transition from a coalition of federalists to a true center-left formation. “I was always more of a theoretical purist,” he added, “letting the politicians do what they needed to with the ideas.”

The Shifting Sands of Canadian Politics

When asked to describe Canada’s political landscape ahead of the next federal election, Pierre drew a historical line in the sand — “the before and the after.”

“Up until the Harper years, Canadian politics was a post-World War II liberal democratic consensus,” he explained. “You had conservatives, liberals, and social democrats who all believed, fundamentally, in equality and freedom.”

But beginning in the late 1990s and accelerating post-Harper, Pierre observed a shift — the rise of populist extremes. “These are movements that don’t believe in the equality and freedom of people. They believe they have a right to tell others how to live,” he warned.

He pointed out that this shift is not uniquely Canadian. “France, Germany, the UK with Brexit — the same pattern has emerged. In Canada and Quebec, we saw it in the rise of the CAQ.”

Populism and Trump: A Turning Point

The conversation naturally turned toward the elephant in the global room: Donald Trump. Pierre sees Trump’s rhetoric and policies not as anomalies, but as part of a long historical arc toward authoritarianism — though dressed in the populist language of grievance.

“When Trump calls Canada ‘woke and broken,’ he’s not joking,” Pierre said. “It may seem like posturing, but it's rooted in a deeper imperialist worldview — something like Manifest Destiny. His issue was never just with Trudeau. It’s about resources, power, and strategic control.”

I asked whether we should take these comments seriously, especially since Trump appears to have toned them down. Pierre’s answer was unequivocal: “This is not about personalities. It’s about strategy. He hasn’t changed his views; he’s just recalibrating for the moment.”

Fascism by Another Name?

As political rhetoric grows more intense, terms like “fascism” have re-entered mainstream discourse. But do they still mean what they used to? Pierre broke it down historically and philosophically.

“Fascism in the Mussolini sense was extreme nationalism with socialism for the in-group and exploitation for everyone else,” he explained. “Modern authoritarianism doesn’t always come with the same socialist flavor — what we’re seeing now resembles what used to be called ‘national conservatism.’”

He was careful to draw a distinction between rhetoric and reality: “Not all fascists are Nazis, but all Nazis were fascists. The key is the authoritarian core — the dismantling of liberal democracy, the erosion of human rights, and the centralization of power around a leader.”

He noted that many people fail to recognize the signs early. “Even Hitler wasn’t ‘Hitler’ before he was Hitler,” he said, referencing the incremental path to dictatorship. “It happens in stages, with people giving permission along the way — until suddenly, the unimaginable is real.”

Civic Memory and the Cost of Forgetting

Pierre believes much of the current vulnerability in Western democracies stems from a fading generational memory of what came before.

“I was lucky — my parents were born in 1917. They lived through the Depression, fascism, and war. My father fought in the Canadian Navy for seven years. I was taught to recognize warning signs.”

But as those firsthand accounts fade, many are left unprepared. “You need people who remember not just the war, but how it started. The small permissions. The subtle changes.”

The Double-Edged Sword of Social Media

Ironically, Pierre sees hope in the same technology that has enabled much of today’s polarization: social media.

“At first, I thought it would be a force for good. Communities could form around interests — even lonely people could find connection,” he said. “I didn’t think about the lonely Nazi down the street who would now find others.”

Yet social media also allows opponents of extremism to connect and organize. “There’s safety in numbers. If someone sees that I’ve spoken out, they realize they’re not alone. Multiply that by thousands, and you create momentum.”

Still, he acknowledged the dangers of manipulation, especially as AI becomes more powerful. “You’ll soon have bots bombarding people with misinformation tailored to their biases. The merging of Musk’s X with AI is terrifying. This isn’t just clickbait anymore — it’s coordinated cognitive warfare.”

Critical Thinking as Civic Duty

When asked how we can resist this wave of disinformation, Pierre emphasized personal responsibility.

“We are all editors now. If you “retweet” something, you’re a publisher. You have a duty to verify it. Especially if it confirms your biases.”

He shared his own rule: if he reads something that triggers a strong emotional response — anger or affirmation — he immediately investigates its validity. “You can’t just react. You need to analyze.”

Business, Politics, and the Myth of Neutrality

As a longtime advisor to companies, Pierre has seen the blurry lines between commerce and politics firsthand. Can businesses still remain apolitical?

“Neutrality is a myth. Business has always operated within a political context,” he said. “But what's changed is the rise of extremist rhetoric and policies that force companies to take a stand — whether they want to or not.”

He warned that Trump’s tariffs and culture war tactics were less about economics and more about coercion. “It’s political extortion. He’s demanding loyalty pledges from corporations, law firms, even universities.”

Canadian businesses, he argued, must recognize that these aren’t just U.S. issues. “There’s no reason what’s happening in the U.S. couldn’t happen here. Quebec already has a nationalist government that’s suspended human rights more than once.”

The Threat — and Promise — of AI in Politics

Our discussion returned to AI, which Pierre sees as both a powerful enabler and a significant threat to democracy.

“AI will be the last invention we make,” I said, to which Pierre responded, “Yes — and that’s why we have to take ownership now. But again, it comes down to us. We have the free agency to resist. We have to critically assess what we read, hear, and share.”

He referenced an incident in a public space where he heard someone make a racially charged comment. “I turned and said, ‘No, you don’t get to say that here.’ That’s what we all need to do. Speak up — calmly but firmly. That’s civic courage.”

A White Rose for Today

Pierre ended with a poignant reference to the White Rose movement — a group of German students who opposed Hitler and were executed for their defiance.

“If I could, I’d tattoo a white rose on my arm,” he said. “Their example reminds us that saying no matters. Even when it’s dangerous. Even when it’s unpopular.”

And that, ultimately, was his call to action: When you see disinformation, call it out. When you see injustice, oppose it. When someone’s freedom or equality is attacked, stand up.

It’s not just about politics. It’s about shared humanity.

Closing Thoughts

Pierre’s insights are a wake-up call for anyone who believes that democracy is self-sustaining. It isn’t. It requires effort, vigilance, and a willingness to engage — even when it’s uncomfortable.

In a time of rising authoritarianism, digital propaganda, and civic fatigue, conversations like these remind us that the responsibility for our future lies with each of us.

And perhaps that’s the most empowering — and frightening — truth of all.