Public service is not for the faint of heart.

Public service is not for the faint of heart. Politicians enter office knowing they will face scrutiny, criticism and at times, outright hostility. They understand that their decisions will not always be popular and that some constituents will express their dissatisfaction vocally. However, there is a difference between holding an elected official accountable and engaging in behaviour that makes it impossible for them to function. The recent events surrounding Livingstone-Macleod MLA Chelsae Petrovic highlight how that line has been crossed, and it should concern anyone who believes in respectful democratic engagement.

Petrovic’s “Coffee with the MLA” events were designed to make her more accessible to her constituents. These meetings allowed residents across the riding to meet her, discuss concerns and raise issues in an informal setting. For some, particularly those in rural or remote areas, these events provided a rare opportunity to speak directly with their representative. But these events have now been cancelled, not because of disinterest or a lack of participation, but because of disruptive behaviour from a group of coal critics.

The decision to cancel these meetings was not taken lightly. Petrovic explained that individuals were using the gatherings to stage protests and turn them into town hall debates. While town halls serve an important function in democratic discourse, that was never the purpose of these meetings. They were meant to foster accessibility, not to be hijacked by one issue. When disruption becomes the norm, it erodes the ability of the MLA’s office to serve the broader constituency.

Coal mining is undoubtedly a contentious issue in Livingstone-Macleod. The lifting of the moratorium on coal mining by the provincial government has angered many, and concerns about environmental impacts are legitimate. Citizens have every right to express those concerns. However, when advocacy turns into obstruction, when the volume of one group drowns out the voices of others, democracy suffers. Elected officials must represent all constituents, not just the loudest ones.

This is not just a political abstraction. I had a friend who needed assistance with a pressing issue back in November. Together, we went to Petrovic’s office, where we were met professionally and respectfully by the MLA and her executive assistant. The meeting was productive, and my friend’s issue was dealt with efficiently and with care. That is what an MLA’s office is supposed to do. But now, because of the actions of a disruptive few, others may lose the opportunity to engage with their elected representative in the same way.

It is disheartening to see the growing normalization of verbal abuse and harassment toward politicians. Public figures expect criticism, but they should not be subjected to relentless personal attacks or hostility that makes it impossible to perform their duties. Why has this become acceptable? When did it become just another part of politics to tear down individuals who step up to serve?

Some will argue that politicians “signed up for this,” that scrutiny and pressure come with the job. To an extent, that is true. But no one signs up to be harassed to the point that they cannot safely hold meetings in public spaces. No one should have to choose between engaging with constituents and protecting local businesses from disruptions caused by political hostility. There is a difference between robust debate and creating an environment where politicians feel unable to engage openly.

At some point, people need to ask themselves what kind of political culture they want to foster. When engaging with an elected official, imagine that person is your mother, father, son or daughter. Would you speak to them in the same way? Would you be comfortable with them being treated as some politicians are today? If the answer is no, then it is time to reconsider how we engage in political discourse.

Petrovic’s decision to cancel these events is a loss for her constituents. People who have concerns about healthcare, education, infrastructure or any number of other issues have now lost an avenue to communicate directly with their MLA. And for what? Because a single issue has been allowed to dominate all others? That is not democracy in action; that is democracy being undermined.

If people want change, they should advocate for it through the proper channels, organizing petitions, writing letters, meeting with representatives in a professional manner. But making it impossible for an MLA to hold community meetings is not a victory. It is a step backward. The harm isn’t just to Petrovic—it affects everyone in the riding who wants to meet with her. And guess what? Coal isn’t the only issue in our constituency, despite what you may think!

The right to protest is fundamental, but so is the right to be heard. Shutting down opportunities for constructive dialogue serves no one in the long run. If people truly care about their communities, they should channel their passion into meaningful, respectful engagement. Anything less is a disservice to the very democracy they claim to defend. Quite frankly, I’m not sure why anyone would run for office anymore!