An Inconvenient Truce: The Precarious Position of Activists in Politics

by EJ Jacobs

As climate delegations gathered in Brazil to reach agreements on strengthening climate action during COP30, an entirely different agreement was unveiled in Canada. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, signed an MOU to extend a pipeline from the landlocked but oil-rich province to the shores of British Columbia, without the consent of the BC government or the Indigenous communities whose land comprises the proposed route.

This once unthinkable move under a Liberal party government shocked many and proved to be a step too far for at least one of its most recognisable members: MP Steven Guilbault immediately quit his cabinet position in a scathing rebuke of both the environmental impact of the pipeline and the process in which it came to be. Given Guilbault’s ascendency from a lifelong activist to a major political figure who had pushed for Canada to lead by example on sweeping progressive environmental policy, this moment felt like more than just a resignation from his post; it felt very much like a resignation from the concept that an activist could still play a pivotal role in holding a government to account from within.

Climate-related disasters in Canada have increased in frequency and severity over recent years, resulting in deadly forest fires and flooding, impacting nearly every region. Yet the sharp devolution of relations with the White House has forced the country to prioritise the geopolitical climate over the environmental climate. 

Bold policies and ideologies that were successfully pushed forward with the help of skillful activist leadership have now been pushed to the side. This continues a troubling trend of well-known activists and civil society leaders who took the political route to social reform, only to find themselves on the outside looking into a system they ultimately could not change. This begs the question: Can activism and politics really coexist in places like Canada and Europe, even under liberal-leaning governments?

Well before Guilbaut chose to run for a parliamentary seat, renowned French environmentalist Nicolas Hulot was blazing the activist-turned-politician trail. His decades of unimpeachable dedication to climate justice earned him several offers of a ministerial position within the previous four French administrations, dating back to 1995. Hulot turned down the first three, but eventually joined President Emmanuel Macron’s government in 2017 as Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition. 

For Macron, Hulot’s acceptance added legitimacy to the ambitious plans to present his country as a leader in climate justice. Hulot saw this as his best opportunity to sew policy  long considered too radical into the fabric of France’s new climate policy.

“I do not claim to have miracle recipes,” said Hulot upon accepting office, “but I want to put ecological urgency at the heart of political decisions.” 

Hulot lasted less than a year in the role, later denouncing the government’s “accumulation of disappointments” in its environmental promises.

More recently, in the UK, the current Labour government suffered several MP resignations less than a year into claiming a stunning majority victory. Among those who quit their post was Annalise Dodds, who served as both the International Development Minister and the Minister for Women. A former student activist who made the transition from campaigning for the rights of women, climate justice, and LGBT rights to becoming an architect of policy on these issues, Dodds could no longer reconcile her place in the government after dramatic cuts were made to the international aid budget.

Since then, the Labour party has continued to hemorrhage MPs with nonprofit backgrounds, who joined the party under a banner of dignified and humane solutions to affordability and immigration prior to taking office. Though it could be argued (and often is by Prime Minister Keir Starmer) that much of the UK’s problems can be traced to the lingering impact of Brexit, Labour’s proposed resolutions to everything from healthcare to social welfare have contrasted starkly with what Starmer promised to curry votes. He welcomed the voices of community leaders into his party to help craft a platform designed to temper his reputation as an out-of-touch law and order man lacking the credibility to convey a message of aggressive change. Today, however, those voices are barely audible within the party’s current agenda. 

As disappointed as voters may be, the sting is also sharp for the MPs who were tasked with spreading these campaign promises to communities they not only belonged to, but have fought to protect at grassroots levels before they entered politics.

From Canada to Europe, activist resignations from political office threaten to extinguish the flickering hopes that community leaders might have to find solutions through a political career path. The message is clear: trusted activists who have joined the government, themselves no longer trust that the government has our best interests at heart. 

At this critical juncture, disillusioned activist groups are taking a harder stance to getting their message across, choosing divisive and increasingly dangerous tactics that threaten to pull support from their causes in almost all directions.

This approach muddies the strategic waters. The loudest voices in the room are often the easiest ones to ignore or dismiss as noise. The most charismatic voices may get a seat at the table, but we have seen how much they struggle to make a meaningful impact. The activist space still seeks influential voices that can effectively navigate political bureaucracy, and deliver a convincing narrative to the skeptical voting public who require the most convincing, in order for progressive and, at this point, necessary policy reforms to advance.

Rona Peligal with the Fund for Global Human Rights believes that activists can play a successful role in reforming political policy, but that this cannot happen without a willingness on both sides to change the parameters of the relationship.

"There is, of course, a trade-off here. On one hand, having activists work in government could create conditions to generate more just policies,” says Peligal. “At the same time, we've learned that it's tempting for officials to blend into the state structure or be co-opted by elites.”

She also suggests that we expand and nurture the many eligible candidates poised to make their mark in politics by abandoning the “canary in the coalmine” method of major parties that  welcomes only one activist at a time into the fold. “I think that external pressure from human rights and social justice groups is critical, but they also need to have allies within the government,” Peligal continues. “We have to learn how to promote the kinds of leaders who are dedicated to improving the lives and environments of those they govern so that the juxtaposition of activist and politician doesn’t feel so foreign."

Despite the recent setbacks, there are solid reasons to encourage future efforts to couple activism with politics. Countries such as Canada, France, and the UK obviously see the benefit, if not a clear need to include activist leadership in their governments. The impact of climate change is no longer a debatable topic. After witnessing the implementation of immigration policies absent of humanity, people yearn for something better. Rather than view Guilbault or Hulot’s tenure in government as a failure, it can be an indicator that tangible entry points are forming to rally more widespread support for a socially responsible agenda. Even if the relationship between activism and politics has yet to be perfected, it is an alliance that is crucial to breaking the cycle of broken promises in government.