As right-wing populism has roiled elections and upended politics across the West, there is one country where populists have largely failed to break through: Canada.

The raw ingredients are present. A white ethnic majority that is losing its demographic dominance. A sharp rise in immigration that is changing culture and communities. News media and political personalities who bet big on white backlash.

Yet Canada’s politics remain stable. Its centrist liberal establishment is popular. Not only have the politics of white backlash failed, but immigration and racial diversity are sources of national pride. And when anti-establishment outsiders have run the populist playbook, they have found defeat.

Outsiders might assume this is because Canada is simply more liberal, but they would be wrong. Rather, Canada has resisted the populist wave through a set of strategic decisions, powerful institutional incentives, strong minority coalitions and idiosyncratic circumstances.

While there is no magic answer, Canada’s experience offers unexpected lessons for other nations.

A DIFFERENT KIND OF IDENTITY

In other Western countries, right-wing populism has emerged as a politics of us-versus-them. It pits members of white majorities against immigrants and minorities, driven by a sense that cohesive national identities are under threat. In France, for instance, it is common to hear that immigration dilutes French identity, and that allowing minority groups to keep their own cultures erodes vital elements of Frenchness.

Identity works differently in Canada. Both whites and nonwhites see Canadian identity as something that not only can accommodate outsiders, but also is enhanced by the inclusion of many different kinds of people.

Canada is a mosaic rather than a melting pot, several people told me — a place that celebrates different backgrounds rather than demanding assimilation. “Lots of immigrants, they come with their culture, and Canadians like that,” said an information technology worker from Russia, Ilya Bolotine, who I met at a large park on the Lake Ontario waterfront. “They like variety. They like diversity.”

Identity rarely works this way. People tend to identify with their race, religion or at least language. Canada’s multicultural identity is largely the result of political manoeuvring.

In 1971, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau faced a crisis amid the rise of French Canadian separatism in Quebec. His party was losing support, and his country seemed at risk of splitting in two. Trudeau’s solution was a policy of official multiculturalism and widespread immigration. This would resolve the conflict over whether Canadian identity was more Anglophone or Francophone — it would be neither, with a range of diversity wide enough to trivialise the old divisions. It would also provide a base of immigrant voters to shore up Trudeau’s Liberal Party.

The result is a broad political consensus around immigrants’ place in Canada’s identity. That creates a virtuous cycle. All parties rely on and compete for minority voters, so none has an incentive to cater to anti-immigrant backlash. That, in turn, keeps anti-immigrant sentiment from becoming a point of political conflict, which makes it less important to voters.

In Britain, among white voters who say they want less immigration, about 40 per cent also say that limiting immigration is the most important issue to them. In the United States, that figure is about 20 per cent. In Canada, according to a 2011 study, it was only 0.34 per cent.

COURTING ETHNIC GROUPS

Even as politicians engineered a pro-diversity consensus, immigrant and minority groups have organised, unapologetic about asserting their interests.

In Canada, because all parties compete for all ethnic blocs, minorities do not tend to polarise into just one party. That leaves little incentive for tribalism, even as minority groups feel empowered to champion their ethnic or religious identity.

“We say, ‘Look, where do you stand on particular issues of importance to us?’” said Mr Kulvir Singh Gill, a member of Toronto’s powerful Sikh community. “And, on the basis of that, we’ll be selective in our support.”

This month, Mr Gill helped organise a fundraising dinner for Seva Food Bank, a Sikh-led charity he helped found. The event was crawling with politicians. Senior members of Canada’s three main parties were present, as were several members of Parliament and the provincial premier, Ontario’s equivalent of governor. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had recorded a video to open the dinner.

All were seeking support from Canada’s Sikhs — but all were going to have to work for it.

While minorities in other countries feel pressure to assimilate, in Canada they do best when they keep a group identity.

But because Canadian politics accounts for diversity without polarising across ethnic or religious lines, it is more resilient. Everyone, including whites, becomes less likely to see politics as a game of us versus them.

“We’re an articulation of that Canadian dream, the Sikh Canadian dream, of living our values and putting them into action,” said Mr Gill.

MAKING MASS IMMIGRATION WORK

Rapid changes in demographics tend to spur anti-immigrant sentiment within the dominant group, say experts, bolstering far-right politicians who promise harsh tactics against outsiders. But although Canada’s high immigration rates have transformed the country in just a few decades, the public has mostly been calm and accepting.

One reason may be Canada’s unusual immigration policies. A sponsorship system, in which Canadian families host newcomers, allows communities to feel they are a part of the country’s refugee resettlement programme.

And a points system, which favours migrants who are thought to contribute economically, makes immigration feel like something that benefits everyone.

Mr Ahmed Hussen, the federal Immigration Minister, said “the luck of geography” had also helped make immigration feel less threatening.

Virtually every immigrant to Canada is brought here deliberately. Research suggests that uncontrolled immigration, for example the mass arrival of refugees in Europe, can trigger a populist backlash, regardless of whether those arrivals pose a threat.

“We have the luxury of being surrounded by oceans on three sides, and then by the US border,” said Mr Hussen. “Which, relative to your southern border, doesn’t have the same amount of irregular migration.”

Canada’s points- and sponsorship-based systems, along with its geographic position, help communities feel a sense of control over immigration so that, even as new arrivals change politics and society, backlash has been minimal.

The result is a system tilted heavily against populist outsiders. Although some have found local success, particularly in Quebec, they have not managed to get national traction.

At the end of my time in Toronto, I attended a conference held by The Rebel, an online news media channel that is often called “Breitbart North” and once seemed like Canada’s populist vanguard.

Like the American outlet Breitbart News, it has risen on dark warnings about Syariah law and nefarious elites.

Last year, as the populist wave rose worldwide, The Rebel threw tacit support to a handful of politicians. One, Ms Kellie Leitch, received airtime and praise as she sought to push populism into the mainstream.

But this year, when Ms Leitch ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party, a major test of populism’s appeal in Canada, she won less than 8 per cent of the vote, placing sixth.

When I attended The Rebel’s daylong conference in Toronto, I saw no politicians drumming up support.

When a speaker warned of Muslim no-go zones in “every hamlet, every village” in Britain, saying that the same could happen in Canada, there were no bellows of rage from the audience, only courteous murmurs of concern.

This was the face of Canadian populism. As their counterparts fan out across Europe and the United States, flexing their political muscle against frightened establishments, here was a listless, modestly sized crowd, whose members seemed aware that they had underperformed but unable to explain why.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Amanda Taub is a writer for The New York Times Interpreter, which explores the ideas and context behind major world events.