On Power and Humility
E-Day plus 6 (or E-Day minus 1,455!)
LPC 39.5% (184 seats), CPC 31.9% (99
seats), NDP 19.7% (44 seats), BQ 4.7% (10) and Greens 3.4% (1). It turns out
the 42nd Parliament will look like most of Canada’s Parliaments since 1935.
Congratulations to the Liberals. They won a clear political victory. We now know why the Conservatives focused their pre-election advertising only on Justin Trudeau. They had discovered something that wasn’t indicated by the polls at that time: the Liberals were their chief threat.
In the end, the pollsters got it right – especially after their final polls were completed on the last Sunday of the campaign. They landed very close to the actual result and pointed to the Liberal majority. Most of them probably got it right throughout the campaign. They accurately told us who was ahead and picked up the steady shift of anti-Harper voters from the NDP to voting Liberal in significant numbers.
The seat predictors didn’t perform as well as the pollsters. They had to make their predictions about the trajectory of the Liberal swing with the polling information available before the final weekend. They all had the right order of the finish – the Liberals first, CPC second and the NDP third – but they missed by how much. The error was decisive in predicting the majority outcome.
Some of you, including my astute sister Jane on the West Coast, did not make the same mistake. Even those of us who called a minority Parliament with the Liberals having the most seats were not completely surprised by the majority. Very few expected the Liberals to defeat so many excellent NDP MPs and candidates in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario. That is what happens in sweeps. On the other side of the ledger, some impressive Liberal candidates were elected.
Going forward, there are two issues related to polling that need a wider discussion: (1) how the mainstream media used the polling reports in its coverage of the election; and, (2) how pollsters pandered shamelessly to their current and prospective sponsors. I will offer some thoughts on these issues in future posts.
For me, it was thrilling to watch the NDP reach historic and tantalizing highs during this election. It was equally painful to watch swing voters move to Trudeau. The efficacy of the two campaigns and the age, personalities, and policies of their leaders undoubtedly played a role. But I believe history was the key factor. When all was said and done, after nearly 150 years in which Canadians turned to the Liberals as the alternative to Conservative governments, the Liberals were in a better position to win an election focused entirely on removing Harper and his Conservatives from office. Policy was only a side issue and local candidates almost a distraction, certainly an irrelevancy to the task at hand.
The same phenomenon played out in the most recent Toronto mayoralty and in last year’s Ontario provincial race. In the municipal election two alternatives, a centrist in John Tory and a centre-left candidate in Olivia Chow, challenged Conservative Rob Ford and later his brother Doug. Olivia Chow tried to reassure the electorate that she was not as “radical” as her opponents had branded her, as did Andrea Horvath in the provincial election, but did not succeed.
In all three cases, the centrist option was the choice of voters. They didn’t want to take any chances and saw Trudeau, as the voters did with John Tory and Kathleen Wynne, as offering a bigger tent and the best bet against another Conservative term. Trudeau, Tory and Wynne were able to entice progressive-light voters with the strategic voting argument. You might actually prefer the NDP especially your local MP but don’t take the chance, they cautioned. You might end up with Harper, Ford or Hudak. This simple strategy of asking voters to pick a "big tent, non-ideological” candidate proved more effective, once again, than the more nuanced choice of a centre-left candidate.
Canadians have had generations of training in this argument. Check out Tommy Douglas’ Mouseland parable. Even younger voters who have barely heard of Jean Chretien, let alone William Lyon Mackenzie King, saw Trudeau as the alternative to Harper and the Liberals as the progressive option. The NDP campaign wasn’t able to overcome this habitual way of thinking despite four strong years as the Official Opposition. After toying with the NDP all summer, when the crunch came in September, swing voters bought into the logic that the "Canadian way" is to vote Liberal.
So what next?
It is frequently said that the Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right. That may not be entirely fair, but the Liberal instinct to move left has always come to the fore when they feel threatened politically from the left. The NDP will have an important role in keeping progressive values, principles and policies in front of the government – in Parliament and parliamentary committees. In recent memory, Pierre Trudeau and a number of other Liberal leaders used the potential strength of the CCF and the NDP to win their own internal party battles with “business” Liberals who were opponents of social reform.
The NDP’s effectiveness in this role is tied to its political capacity to challenge the Liberals electorally. This will require maintaining and building close relationships with those working for social change outside and on the edges of the political arena. The polls showed that most Liberal voters favoured the NDP as a second choice and were prepared to consider voting NDP this time. A solid foundation to build on if the Liberals do not live up to expectations.
With respect to electoral reform, Trudeau told us last week that the next election will not be fought under the present “first-past-the-post” system. He will need help to work out the best alternative and in establishing a do-able timetable for implementation before the next election.
I doubt there is an appetite in either party for merger. Many in the electorate would like it. Young voters don’t understand why it hasn’t happened already. Whether there is any basis for serious work on this is initially up to the Liberals as the party with the greatest number of seats in the House of Commons.
Few governments exhibit humility. The exercise and authority of power tend to erase any instinct for it. Yet a willingness to attend to other voices, assuming they too have a contribution to make, would serve the country well. There are early signs that Trudeau is inclined to be inclusive in this way. His reassuring letter to public servants, his willingness to meet journalists in the National Press Gallery Theatre, and his invitation to Premiers and Opposition critics to join a Canadian delegation to the climate change talks in Paris sharply differentiated the Prime Minister-designate from the outgoing one.
False humility – for political purposes only – is easily detected. But true humility is at the core of real leadership and real change. This kind of leadership is well suited to our parliamentary system. Regardless of party affiliation, MPs should be afforded the respect that flows from the fact they are elected to represent their constituents. Many of the issues before Parliament do not break down along fiercely partisan lines. It will take humility for the new Prime Minister to risk giving all MPs meaningful roles in federal policymaking, to listen to their ideas for amendments to legislation, and even to give them opportunities like the one I had in 1993 to chair a legislative committee when I was a member of an Opposition party.
Pierre Trudeau sought Ed Broadbent’s support for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and accepted a number of NDP amendments even though he had a majority. He acted as if broad support for the Charter mattered. No one ever accused him of lacking self-confidence in the exercise of power. Yet, in this and other ways, he showed the humility of a capable leader.
Justin Trudeau will find many role models in Canadian leaders of all stripes. In recent years, majority and minority Liberal governments were not particularly inclusive or generous in their dealings with other parties. Certainly Stephen Harper showed no capacity for humility let alone civility in his approach to governing. An inclusive, gracious approach to leadership – and greater tolerance for dissent – are necessary to start restoring respect for Parliament and parliamentarians, and renewing democracy in our time.
Congratulations to the Liberals. They won a clear political victory. We now know why the Conservatives focused their pre-election advertising only on Justin Trudeau. They had discovered something that wasn’t indicated by the polls at that time: the Liberals were their chief threat.
In the end, the pollsters got it right – especially after their final polls were completed on the last Sunday of the campaign. They landed very close to the actual result and pointed to the Liberal majority. Most of them probably got it right throughout the campaign. They accurately told us who was ahead and picked up the steady shift of anti-Harper voters from the NDP to voting Liberal in significant numbers.
The seat predictors didn’t perform as well as the pollsters. They had to make their predictions about the trajectory of the Liberal swing with the polling information available before the final weekend. They all had the right order of the finish – the Liberals first, CPC second and the NDP third – but they missed by how much. The error was decisive in predicting the majority outcome.
Some of you, including my astute sister Jane on the West Coast, did not make the same mistake. Even those of us who called a minority Parliament with the Liberals having the most seats were not completely surprised by the majority. Very few expected the Liberals to defeat so many excellent NDP MPs and candidates in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario. That is what happens in sweeps. On the other side of the ledger, some impressive Liberal candidates were elected.
Going forward, there are two issues related to polling that need a wider discussion: (1) how the mainstream media used the polling reports in its coverage of the election; and, (2) how pollsters pandered shamelessly to their current and prospective sponsors. I will offer some thoughts on these issues in future posts.
For me, it was thrilling to watch the NDP reach historic and tantalizing highs during this election. It was equally painful to watch swing voters move to Trudeau. The efficacy of the two campaigns and the age, personalities, and policies of their leaders undoubtedly played a role. But I believe history was the key factor. When all was said and done, after nearly 150 years in which Canadians turned to the Liberals as the alternative to Conservative governments, the Liberals were in a better position to win an election focused entirely on removing Harper and his Conservatives from office. Policy was only a side issue and local candidates almost a distraction, certainly an irrelevancy to the task at hand.
The same phenomenon played out in the most recent Toronto mayoralty and in last year’s Ontario provincial race. In the municipal election two alternatives, a centrist in John Tory and a centre-left candidate in Olivia Chow, challenged Conservative Rob Ford and later his brother Doug. Olivia Chow tried to reassure the electorate that she was not as “radical” as her opponents had branded her, as did Andrea Horvath in the provincial election, but did not succeed.
In all three cases, the centrist option was the choice of voters. They didn’t want to take any chances and saw Trudeau, as the voters did with John Tory and Kathleen Wynne, as offering a bigger tent and the best bet against another Conservative term. Trudeau, Tory and Wynne were able to entice progressive-light voters with the strategic voting argument. You might actually prefer the NDP especially your local MP but don’t take the chance, they cautioned. You might end up with Harper, Ford or Hudak. This simple strategy of asking voters to pick a "big tent, non-ideological” candidate proved more effective, once again, than the more nuanced choice of a centre-left candidate.
Canadians have had generations of training in this argument. Check out Tommy Douglas’ Mouseland parable. Even younger voters who have barely heard of Jean Chretien, let alone William Lyon Mackenzie King, saw Trudeau as the alternative to Harper and the Liberals as the progressive option. The NDP campaign wasn’t able to overcome this habitual way of thinking despite four strong years as the Official Opposition. After toying with the NDP all summer, when the crunch came in September, swing voters bought into the logic that the "Canadian way" is to vote Liberal.
So what next?
It is frequently said that the Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right. That may not be entirely fair, but the Liberal instinct to move left has always come to the fore when they feel threatened politically from the left. The NDP will have an important role in keeping progressive values, principles and policies in front of the government – in Parliament and parliamentary committees. In recent memory, Pierre Trudeau and a number of other Liberal leaders used the potential strength of the CCF and the NDP to win their own internal party battles with “business” Liberals who were opponents of social reform.
The NDP’s effectiveness in this role is tied to its political capacity to challenge the Liberals electorally. This will require maintaining and building close relationships with those working for social change outside and on the edges of the political arena. The polls showed that most Liberal voters favoured the NDP as a second choice and were prepared to consider voting NDP this time. A solid foundation to build on if the Liberals do not live up to expectations.
With respect to electoral reform, Trudeau told us last week that the next election will not be fought under the present “first-past-the-post” system. He will need help to work out the best alternative and in establishing a do-able timetable for implementation before the next election.
I doubt there is an appetite in either party for merger. Many in the electorate would like it. Young voters don’t understand why it hasn’t happened already. Whether there is any basis for serious work on this is initially up to the Liberals as the party with the greatest number of seats in the House of Commons.
Few governments exhibit humility. The exercise and authority of power tend to erase any instinct for it. Yet a willingness to attend to other voices, assuming they too have a contribution to make, would serve the country well. There are early signs that Trudeau is inclined to be inclusive in this way. His reassuring letter to public servants, his willingness to meet journalists in the National Press Gallery Theatre, and his invitation to Premiers and Opposition critics to join a Canadian delegation to the climate change talks in Paris sharply differentiated the Prime Minister-designate from the outgoing one.
False humility – for political purposes only – is easily detected. But true humility is at the core of real leadership and real change. This kind of leadership is well suited to our parliamentary system. Regardless of party affiliation, MPs should be afforded the respect that flows from the fact they are elected to represent their constituents. Many of the issues before Parliament do not break down along fiercely partisan lines. It will take humility for the new Prime Minister to risk giving all MPs meaningful roles in federal policymaking, to listen to their ideas for amendments to legislation, and even to give them opportunities like the one I had in 1993 to chair a legislative committee when I was a member of an Opposition party.
Pierre Trudeau sought Ed Broadbent’s support for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and accepted a number of NDP amendments even though he had a majority. He acted as if broad support for the Charter mattered. No one ever accused him of lacking self-confidence in the exercise of power. Yet, in this and other ways, he showed the humility of a capable leader.
Justin Trudeau will find many role models in Canadian leaders of all stripes. In recent years, majority and minority Liberal governments were not particularly inclusive or generous in their dealings with other parties. Certainly Stephen Harper showed no capacity for humility let alone civility in his approach to governing. An inclusive, gracious approach to leadership – and greater tolerance for dissent – are necessary to start restoring respect for Parliament and parliamentarians, and renewing democracy in our time.
Stephen Harper single-handedly created a new meme. You've heard of the "tyranny of the majority". Harper gave us the Tyranny of the Minority. There was absolutely no humility in his character. He repeatedly rammed his ideology into the body politic, and was roundly hated for it after 5 years. Couldn't even bring himself to resign in public. Sadly, many of the Conservatives appear clueless about what happened. It wasn't going to matter at all what their "message" was. When you live in a belief-system bubble that insulates you from facts, reality has a way of surprising you.
ReplyDelete