This past week in politics has given me fresh fuel for stoking the argument that democracy is in trouble for its chronic inability to reach a meaningful consensus. With the SNC Lavalin scandal becoming full blown, with the spotlight being shone on a parliamentary inquiry tasked at determining whether the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) exercised undue influence on the Attorney General, the public is being treated to a spectacle that basically breaks down along partisan lines. The cause of political transparency and legitimacy all comes down to which story people like me want to believe: Liberal, Conservative, NDP. Back of all this is a concerted effort by the Prime Minister and his friends to find a narrative that sounds convincing enough to satisfy the public without compromising their ‘right’ to withhold. In the end, as polls disclose all to well, trust in how the system works to protect integrity and transparency takes a big dive. For everyone who believes Trudeau’s line that any effort by his office to change the AG’s mind on the need to prosecute SNC was simply a reasonable attempt to protect jobs in Quebec, there are more than enough detractors lining up to claim otherwise. Fact checking shows that many of these 9000 Canadian jobs were never in jeopardy in the first place. Some might argue that the Liberals, by dint of this explanation, are only trying to change the story for their own political advantage while helping their corporate pals going into a federal election. If democracy is meant to survive this latest scandal, it will likely do so only because the public gets to deliver its final verdict as to which side has got the story straight. However, I can’t help thinking that there is much that is seedy and undemocratic about democracy that could kill it in the long run: corrupt practices, weak oversight, lying, disinformation, distrust, public discontent, and executive privilege. It only takes one huge geopolitical crisis to test this theory in a hurry.