Authoritarianism is a path we cannot afford to go down. When governments choose predictable policy over authoritarian chaos, they do not just look morally better — they look reliable. And reliability is currency. It is as simple as that.
When people see the use of the notwithstanding clause, they may focus on the surface issue — trans kids, education policy, culture-war signaling — and conclude, “no big deal.” But that is not the signal investors, insurers, and long-term planners are reading. They are not judging the social policy. They are judging the method.
The signal is this: if a province is willing to suspend constitutional protections to override courts on a politically sensitive issue involving children within its own borders, then the rules are not fixed — they are contingent. Today it is one group. Tomorrow it could be another. The question becomes unavoidable: if the government is willing to do this here, what else is it willing to do when pressure rises?
From the outside, this introduces volatility. It suggests that commitments are not anchored in durable institutions but in political convenience. Investors do not ask whether they agree with the policy. They ask whether agreements will still mean what they mean now if the political winds shift. Can property rights be trusted? Can regulatory frameworks be relied upon? Can long-term deals survive the next outrage cycle?
The uncomfortable truth is that the final verdict on authoritarianism is not rendered in the legislature or even in the courts. It is rendered quietly, in boardrooms. Courts can strike laws down. Legislatures can override courts. But capital decides where to go next. And capital is allergic to whim. It does not reward governments that demonstrate a willingness to treat constitutional limits as optional.
That does not mean investors rush for the exits every time rights are overridden. It means the jurisdiction is re-priced. Risk premiums rise. Insurance tightens. Marginal projects go elsewhere. The damage is subtle, cumulative, and deniable — until it isn’t.
This is why authoritarianism aimed “only” at citizens is still economically relevant. Markets may not care about rights for their own sake, but they care deeply about predictability. When governments demonstrate that power can be exercised without constraint, the trust that underwrites long-term investment erodes. Not dramatically. Quietly. And by the time it shows up in the data, the decision has already been made somewhere you will never see.
Predictable governance is not a moral luxury. It is economic infrastructure. Once a government signals that it is willing to override the rules rather than govern within them, the question is no longer whether a policy is popular today — it is whether anyone is foolish enough to believe the promises made under it will still hold tomorrow.