Former prime minister Kim Campbell once wisely informed me she didn't -- and couldn't -- represent all women, despite elated media coverage to the contrary, just because she was a woman.
But she could represent her riding, and through that, Canadians -- regardless of gender, faith or racial and cultural heritages -- if she was elected leader.
Indeed, though our current federal government was not elected by a majority of us -- it received only 36.3 per cent of the popular vote -- it was our biggest winner, and so is tasked to speak for all Canadians on the world and national stages, though it may not be "representative" of your views or mine in particular.
But funnily enough, it works. And it sure beats the alternatives -- strife, threats and war.
So why, then, are we allowing the establishment of parallel societies in Canada -- and elsewhere in the democratic world -- that threaten that system?
Consider Canada's reserves, where elected leaders are sometimes pitted against so-called "hereditary" chiefs or "warrior" leaders for control of their government authority and negotiating rights.
The flag waved by these minority factions is that elections are antithetical to native culture, based historically on hereditary leadership. Hogwash. What elections do is give power to the people on reserves -- and if they want hereditary chiefs, they will elect them. Suggesting otherwise is a power grab by those whose own people did not vote for them -- and we should all say so.
But we don't.
Instead, we allow native communities to be divided and peaceful co- existence ruptured.
Consider Caledonia, the site of a year-long occupation of lands and violent skirmishes that are tearing the heart out of this once-thriving Ontario community, pitting natives against non-natives, and Six Nations members against each other.
And why has it taken a year to resolve? Not for lack of will or work from either side, but because of ongoing disputes about who should represent the band at the negotiating table -- although it should be obvious by whom the band members elected.
In this case, it's Chief David General, who was reportedly accosted recently on his way into negotiations by members who voiced support for the "Confederacy," the so-called "hereditary" government, one Chief General has, most fairly, been consulting -- and that should be enough.
It's not just Caledonia. In British Columbia, two Nisga'a band members want the courts to overturn the treaty that established the Nisga'a Lisims Government, because they contend it destroys their hereditary culture, though the majority of band members supported it.
It's not just native groups. Whenever there is a news incident involving any racial or religious minority in Canada, journalists rush to find spokespeople. And more often than not, it's not elected officials being contacted, but racial or religious organizations that purport to represent them, and sometimes use the publicity to push for power.
Consider how the media cover so-called "Muslim" issues.
Do we talk to leaders who interpret their religion strictly, or secularly? Those whose religious heritage is from one stream or another? Those hailing from the Middle East or Asia? From democracies, or theocracies? Do we talk to women's groups, or men who purport to speak for them? Or do journalists give as many radical and minority organizations as possible a voice, thereby drowning out the voice of the majority?
This divisive issue hit the front pages of newspapers in Europe and Canada recently after two Muslim immigrant women, Arzu Toker from Turkey and Mitra Zainal from Iran, grew tired of being represented in the media -- and before governments -- by religious leaders, and organized the Central Committee for Ex- Muslims to represent the so-called "cultural" or secular majority of Muslims in Europe.
Zainal, who fled the Islamic regime of Iran for Germany, explained she spent "years trying to get out from the power of the Muslim authorities.
"Now that I'm in Germany, I don't have to have religion, but it turns out that the people who speak for me are what? They are Muslim authorities!"
Their concerns are echoed in reports about districts in Paris and London -- and on some of Canada's reserves -- where the power-hungry, the fanatical, or the criminal seize power.
Our reluctance to discuss this because of cultural relativism -- we're loath to comment on issues in racial or religious communities even when human rights are threatened -- is dangerous for everyone, but especially for those caught in the crossfire.
How sad, then, that it's taken two brave women -- who could be targeted for death -- for us to take notice.
In the end, religious leaders, like hereditary chiefs, are one voice -- but they're not the only voice, and they're not the elected voice.
It took philosophers centuries of debate, but in the end, they created a wonderful system: the freely chosen and freely elected rule by consulting with a variety of leaders, not by being over-ruled or intimidated by any of them. It's called democracy, and in Greek, it means rule by the people.
Lest we forget, huh?
Dianne Rinehart is an Ottawa-based writer.