| If Preston Manning were dead today, he’d be spinning in his grave.
In another – perhaps fairer – universe, the former leader of the Reform Party would be poised, finally, to become prime minister. Having served his political apprenticeship with the Alberta Social Credit party in the 1960s, Manning bided his time for almost two decades before deciding to launch the Reform Party in 1987. Combining the slogan "The West Wants In" with a promise to reform federalism and implement a range of neo-conservative policies, Manning helped to shatter the "two-and-a-half party" political system that had held sway since the end of the Second World War.
That system is now gone, forever. In its place, we have a multi-party system that’s unlikely ever again to see a single party claim an outright majority of the popular vote. At the same time, and again thanks largely to Manning’s tireless advocacy of the idea, all major parties are today committed to "fiscal responsibility" and "balanced budgets," in rhetoric at least if not in practice.
In short, the Canada we have today is – in terms of public policy, at least – very much the kind of Canada that Manning dreamed of more than 40 years ago. Yet instead of him, it’s now Stephen Harper who’s preparing to lead the federal conservative movement to power after a dozen years in the political wilderness.
How did this come to pass?
Manning was never what you might call charismatic or even engaging – a tendency to lecture rather than debate was only one of his weaknesses – but he did offer, for better or worse, a clear and coherent vision of Canada. Not for him the sleazy backroom wheeling and dealing so beloved of both Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien (and Paul Martin, too, I suspect). And in 2000, he took the rarest of political steps and sacrificed his own party in an attempt to reunify the Reform and Conservative parties into a single electoral body, the Canadian Alliance.
In hindsight, that was the beginning of the end for Manning. Members of the new party thanked Manning by dumping him for the chippier Stockwell Day, who in turn they quickly abandoned for Stephen Harper in April 2002. Harper set about completing Manning’s reunification work, and in October 2003 brought together the Alliance and those old Tories who’d resisted the previous merger. Thus was born the new Conservative Party, led for the past two years by Harper.
Yet if Manning had been a tough sell – requiring adjustments in hair, teeth and elocution to make him more "voter-friendly" – then Stephen Harper posed an almost impossible proposition. He himself even once joked that he’d become an economist because he didn’t have the personality to be an accountant. Strong on political strategy and intellectually self-assured, Harper lacked the "common touch" – or rather, the ability to fabricate it – so vital to success in modern politics.
At least, this is how the media has portrayed Harper for the past two years. As recently as last weekend, Rex Murphy in the Globe and Mail observed that Harper’s smile – while more in evidence this campaign – was "not one of nature’s great handiworks." In the same issue, columnist John Ibbitson made much of Harper’s short-fused temper and tendency to sulk when he doesn’t get his way.
Yet as the election campaign nears its end, and a Conservative victory of some kind seems more than likely, there are signs that even the media has softened in its attitude towards Harper. According to McGill University’s Observatory on Media and Public Policy, which has tracked more than 2,000 campaign reports and editorials, coverage of Harper has steadily become more positive while that of Paul Martin and the Liberals has worsened. "The former angry young man of Canadian politics," concluded Maclean’s in its recent profile of Harper, "may have won over the media."
Given that our impressions of parties and their leaders are formed mostly through the media, this is an important victory. The final battle, however, will be on January 23. And while most recent polls have been predicting a Conservative minority, it’s still not clear just how such a government would operate.
If the Conservatives fail to reach the 155-seat mark, then they’ll have to lean on the support of at least one other party. It’s hard to see how Jack "Won’t Get Fooled Again" Layton could offer his backing and maintain any credibility with rank-and-file NDPers; likewise, any collaboration between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois in the House must surely doom Harper in the long run. And while Harper’s own suggestion that he might be able to work with the Liberals on certain issues may be refreshingly cross-partisan, it throws into question just why we had this election in the first place.
It’s hard to avoid the obvious conclusion: under the present system, Canada has become ungovernable. Even if the Conservatives secure, say, 40 per cent of popular support, with a voter turnout in the region of 60 per cent (as in recent elections), this would mean that three-quarters of all eligible voters would prefer something other than a Harper-led government.
Rather than serve as an indictment of Liberal corruption, then, a Harper victory is likely to refuel demands for substantive electoral reform. Harper himself has placed the issue high on his list of priorities should he become the next prime minister. But such reform must amount to more than merely tinkering with the Senate – who today would be satisfied with the "Triple E" goal of Manning and other old Reformers?
Indeed, if Harper does deliver on his promise, then perhaps soon we’ll be asking, "Preston who?" |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.