Though hardly like a church supper, Canadian politics has often appeared more civil and civically engaging than its U.S. counterpart. Yet earlier this summer Canadians held an election that only James Carville or Karl Rove could love. In the process, they inadvertently highlighted deeper failings of Western democracies.

Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Liberal government, though reduced to minority status, will likely retain power for at least a year. It enjoys limited support from the left-leaning New Demo-cratic Party and from economically progressive elements of the Bloc Qu?b?cois. Martin cast the election as a referendum on the future of the Canadian welfare state. The new Conservative Party sought a judgment on Liberal Party corruption.

Neither party inspired confidence. Martin’s Liberal predecessor Jean Chr?tien’s program to promote Canadian nationalism in Quebec through an ad campaign ended up channeling money to Liberal Party friends and cast a shadow over the campaign.

But the future of health care and of other welfare state entitlements was at least as basic an issue. As Maine residents know, waiting lists for many elective surgeries are notoriously long and some live-saving cancer treatments have had to be “outsourced” to the United States.

In this context, Martin’s attempt to cast himself as defender of Canada’s Medicare was particularly implausible. New Democratic Patty leader Jack Layton, though limited by third-party status and a bombastic style, nonetheless made at least one effective point: If Martin really were concerned about the future of health care, why had he done so little during his years as finance minister in the Chr?tien cabinet?

Martin’s efforts to parry this question with lectures about Canada’s enduring need to trim its national debt raised other equally troubling questions. Why can’t Canada, a nation that, unlike its southern neighbor, has enjoyed large surpluses in recent years, now afford more investment in key national priorities like health?

Canadian Conservatives were unable to make much headway by exploiting health care shortages.

Conservative Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, infamous in the United States for suggestions that ranchers might just bury mad cows, implied his province might go its own way on health care, i.e. privatize parts of its system.

His remarks created great difficulties for Federal Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Not surprisingly, with neither federal party very respected, personal attacks and long-standing regional animosities were given a wide play.

It might surprise many Americans that despite obvious recent failures, the great majority of Canadians prefer their health care system and broad safety net to our every-person-for-themselves economy. Many Canadians feel that were the system adequately funded it would achieve even better health care outcomes with far smaller per patient expenditures. Nearly 70 percent of Canadian voters cast votes that amounted to at least provisional support for continuation of the Canadian welfare state.

Perhaps the most significant and least noticed outcome of the election was the number of nonvoters. Since 1988, Canada’s voting percentage has fallen from 75 to 60 percent. Official voter lists omit as many as 5 percent of eligible Canadians. Thus, the actual percentage of voters is closer to 55 percent, only slightly higher than U.S. norms. These dismal figures came despite a prolonged advertising campaign to bring out the vote, especially among young Canadians. Flashy voting ads were about as successful as the Liberal Party advertising campaign to promote federalism in Quebec.

The Canadian election is suggestive of a deeper malaise gripping Western democracies. In Canada, as in the United States, citizens who don’t vote are disproportionately the young, the poor and the minorities. Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford has suggested that many of these voters have lost faith that government can help hem. Years of Liberal social cuts, a consequence of – and even overreaction to – the fiscal demands that trade agendas and capital mobility have imposed, have left many without hope for the future.

Nineteen eighty-eight was a pivotal year for Canada. A majority of its citizens were opposed to corporate-oriented trade agreements, but under Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system, Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives won a Parliamentary majority. They started Canada on the road to NAFTA. Ever since, Canada has been obsessed with concerns about job flight. These have only magnified as financial capital moves in ever faster and more speculative flows, threatening the stability of the Canadian dollar.

Activists on both sides of the border now need to collaborate on strategies to press their governments to rewrite trade agreements and limit speculative capital flows. Only then can democracies protect social programs that still matter not only to the most vulnerable but also to many working- and middle-class citizens.

Progressives in the United States should take comfort that obituaries for the Canadian welfare state were premature. Nonetheless, without efforts to change trade agreements and electoral systems, any comfort may be short-lived.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net