Many of the wisest Americans have muttered under their breath that if Texas Gov. George W. Bush wins this election, they would move to Canada. Alas! Elections seem to be a political contagion. Canada herself is now caught in furious political debate that will culminate on Nov. 27 with the choice of a new Prime Minister. If you are planning on becoming a political refugee, I encourage you to take a close look at the passionately political country that you'd be fleeing to. The move, I think, would be more of a culture shock than many would believe, and the parallel elections provide some insights into the differences between the two countries.

American politics, it seems to me, are the politics of the individual. Both candidates in this election have tried to "connect" with the common American and have focused their attention on making the lives of the average person--like those little old ladies who don't have enough money to buy pharmaceutical products but who somehow are in the audience every time Vice President Al Gore '69 speaks--more comfortable. Promises are made to put money back in the pockets of the individual with tax cuts across the board; never-ending debates on abortions and military spending occupy the candidates; and plans are formulated on the future of Social Security and criticized because of their economic viability.

In Canada, in contrast, elections are characterized by debates on political ideology and social introspection. Because of the fear of Quebec's secession from the rest of the Confederation, a party's campaign is either a five to eight week advertisement on the virtues of Canada or a jumble of plans for the renovation of the country and the Constitution. The continuous threat posed by the separatist movement forces Canadians to think about the direction of their society at every election. It is a chance for us to pretend we all hate politics and then happily engage in arduous and arcane political debates about the country's identity and values. It is a time when the society takes stock of itself and looks forward to its collective political future.

This sense of collective political future, however, does not seem strong in the American election. In the debates between Bush and Gore on Social Security, for example, the individual and the economy seem to have been the important issues. Gore presented his plans by talking about individual families that would benefit from it; Bush famously attacked this with his unparalleled analytic ability and called the whole thing "fuzzy math." Neither candidate seemed to look upon the notion of a universal standard of health care as an important social value. In both cases, it was a question of how the next President of the United States can directly improve the lives of the individual while keeping the budget balanced.

Universal free health care in Canada, on the other hand, is one of the most sacred political values. Canadians espouse the view that wealth should not be the deciding factor in health: Our humanity entitles us to the same level of care as the next person. Debates on Social Security in Canada often focus around the difficulties inherent in a system that offers free medical care. Many might argue that "privatization" might solve the staffing problem, the speed of emergency rooms and the occasional lack of the necessary resources to help a patient. Yet the pervading view in Canada is that while privatization might raise the optimal level of care available, the average level of care in Canada--currently much higher than it is over here--would be greatly reduced.

This commitment to universal health care shows that Canadians inhabit a very different political space than Americans do. If Canada were to abolish Medicare, tax rates would plummet, the Canadian government would run absurd surpluses and the level of care for some would definitely rise. Individuals would feel like they're benefiting until they had to pay hospital bills; the economy would certainly conform more to that of a capitalist democracy. Yet Canadians tend to agree that the society would suffer as a whole if Medicare were abolished. For us, the benefits of universal free health care aren't entirely measurable by analyzing only the individual and the economy. Our collective vision of Canada as a society requires us to maintain free medical care for all.

This is but one example, yet it illustrates one of the most profound differences between Canada and the United States. Americans, on the whole, seem to look at themselves predominantly as individuals whose government exists to serve their needs, whereas in Canada a stronger sense of collective social responsibility defines our politics and our identity. Oddly, this makes Canadians an extremely passionate people about their country, fellow citizens and society. If you are planning to seek asylum up North from the results of this insipid election, I advise you to prepare yourself for a completely different approach. Canada, after all, is a country where we'll use anything to stay warm--even political debates.

Rohan R. Gulrajani '02 is an engineering concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.