Political dissent led to resignations by Premier Ed Stelmach (l) and former finance minister Ted Morton, says U of C professor.
For 40 years, the Progressive Conservatives have ruled Alberta with relative ease, quashing dissent through intimidation, fear and old-fashioned backroom politicking.
Opposition, political or otherwise, has, for the most part, been ineffective in countering the Tory’s well-crafted narratives.
Former premier Peter Lougheed divided Albertans into “doers and knockers.” Ralph Klein built upon Lougheed’s mythos, creating the fictional, quintessentially normal Albertan characters known as Martha and Henry.
“Tories were ‘doers’ and ‘knockers’ were opposition people,” veteran political reporter Sheila Pratt told a crowd at a recent forum hosted by the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association (RMCLA). “And you didn’t want to be in the knocker crowd.”
Pratt, along with University of Calgary political science professor Tom Flanagan, and RMCLA members Dan Shapiro and Kelly Ernst, led a discussion about dissent in the province.
Critics, or “knockers,” were cast as communists by the Tory government. Opposition party members were whiners and complainers. The downtrodden were tagged as victims of the week.
The not-so-subtle message: Be a team player, don’t rock the boat and everything will be all right.
“Arguments about how dissent disrupts harmony are often used by those in power to further entrench their power and suppress minority views,” says Shapiro, a director with the RMCLA.
“It’s no coincidence that the explicit policy of the Chinese Communist Party is to promote a harmonious society with themselves at the top and little or no resistance from those at the bottom,” he says.
Countries such as China or Libya exert more “formal” means of squashing dissent by restricting free speech and opposition parties, says Shapiro. “But in Alberta, it’s the informal forms of constraint that we should be most concerned with,” he says. Those “informal forms” include the threat of lost funding and perks to discourage people from speaking out.
Pratt contends the Tory government’s “informal” tactics ultimately created a culture of fear in the province. Sources inside and outside the government increasingly became reluctant to speak on the record, she says. It was by now well known that dissent was not tolerated. The “fear factor” was weaving itself into the fabric of the province.
“You wonder if it’s a deliberate tactic to silence critics, or is it just the natural evolution of a party that’s run the province for so many years?” says Pratt.
Even average Albertans — Marthas and Henrys if you will — attending political events hosted by emerging political parties, such as the Wildrose Alliance and the Alberta Party, have been fearful of having their names in print, says Pratt.
“If people are that afraid, a new party could never take hold here,” she says. “Then I thought, ‘Maybe that’s the point.’”
In fact, that is the point, or rather the result, of Alberta’s “peculiar pattern of one-party dominance,” which ultimately leads to “unattractive features,” says Flanagan.
“A party in that position tends to become complacent, and more than that it can become mean, vindictive and secretive, engage in a lot of nepotism and patronage, and can be intimidating,” he says. Though none of this should come as a surprise to anyone, he adds. “That’s what politicians do,” he says. “They are by nature mean, vindictive and given to patronage and intimidation when they get into power.”
But cracks are now showing in the Tory fortress. The Conservative party backtracked on its oil and gas royalty framework after outcry from the petroleum industry, the Tories’ prime benefactor.
Frustrated Tory MLAs, such as Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth, jumped ship to the surging Wildrose Alliance, which has been sucking support from the Tories and now, according to polls, is within striking distance of the government.
Then along came Dr. Raj Sherman. Last year, Sherman, then a Tory MLA, openly criticized the government’s handling of the emergency room crisis in the province. Sherman’s Tory colleagues, in turn, openly questioned his mental stability before finally booting the dissident surgeon from caucus.
The Tories’ whisper campaign against Sherman began to take hold among some of the public and media. But soon the narrative began to crumble as former and current Alberta medical professionals emerged with similar concerns about Alberta’s health care system and tales of government threats and intimidation.
Meanwhile, in rural areas, the Wildrose Alliance, with the aid of a well-spoken lawyer, effectively capitalized on landowners’ fears about several land-use bills introduced by the government. Tory MLAs and cabinet ministers now face angry, booing crowds in what once was the Conservative motherland.
It all became too much for the Tories to handle. A whisper campaign of a different kind emerged: The caucus was ready to revolt against its controversy-prone leader, Premier Ed Stelmach.
Ted Morton, a die-hard fiscal conservative, resigned as finance minister rather than introduce yet another deficit budget. It was only then that Stelmach announced his resignation.
All this has happened for one reason, says Flanagan. “They are afraid of the Wildrose party,” he says. “You have to make politicians afraid of you and to do that you have to create an effective opposition that challenges them.”
Now with four opposition parties continually hammering away at the Tories — sometimes in unison — dissension may be in vogue. Even amongst the Marthas and Henrys.
“Look where we are today... this isn’t going to stick,” says Pratt. “We have four opposition parties out there today. We have a number of MLAs who left the Tory party and have gone to other parties. Maybe things are changing.”


Comments: 15
BungmanAB wrote:
on Jun 9th, 2011 at 4:10pm Report Abuse
Subvertisement wrote:
on Jun 9th, 2011 at 4:54pm Report Abuse
teamalberta wrote:
on Jun 9th, 2011 at 6:08pm Report Abuse
BungmanAB wrote:
Many don't think the Wildrose provides that.
Alberta would be better served by a multi-party legislature with vigorous opposition.
Times are different now. At least I hope so.
on Jun 9th, 2011 at 8:48pm Report Abuse
Ricknewcombe wrote:
These types of comments are part of the problem and not the solution. Subjective labels of right or left do not reflect actual policy, just more political fear mongering.
on Jun 10th, 2011 at 7:43am Report Abuse
Democracy123 wrote:
When senior members feel they have to control the vote like that, one can only wonder if they have some kind of hidden agenda. It left me, (and some others I talked to) bewildered and angry, because we had been lead to believe that this party was about grassroots democracy.
I would suggest that anyone wishing to join the party do their research and find out what it is really all about. I would also suggest that anyone in leadership of this party care to comment on what looked like a very deliberate attempt to influence the vote at the last minute.
on Jun 10th, 2011 at 8:48am Report Abuse
BungmanAB wrote:
on Jun 10th, 2011 at 6:56pm Report Abuse
Ron wrote:
The point is, who needs three parties that espouse variation on the same tired theme? When you keep doing the same thing every time but keep expecting a different result, an unbiased outsider might think that you are at least a bit daffy. And so the reputation of Alberta beyond its borders as the place where "their necks are red and their brains are dead."
A look at the mess health care, the environment and education are in, coupled with a large deficit, makes me think that the same old song and dance quite obviously doesn't work anymore - if it ever did. I cannot think of another place on earth with such potential that has been mis-managed and mis-used so intensely.
In that situation, I think the answer is to try a completely different direction. Call it what you will, but "conservative"-based politics has a damned poor track-record, not jus in Alberta or Canada, but around the world. It's not 1911 anymore. It's time for politics to be here now. The P.C. and its clones have nothing to say to me.
on Jun 11th, 2011 at 1:43am Report Abuse
Democracy123 wrote:
on Jun 11th, 2011 at 2:22pm Report Abuse
BungmanAB wrote:
Not a single party member, executive or otherwise, told me how to vote.
on Jun 11th, 2011 at 8:16pm Report Abuse
Clairvoyant wrote:
on Jun 15th, 2011 at 7:20pm Report Abuse
Ron wrote:
But I do see this province literally throwing itself away with little substantive return. A much better job could and should be done here. In particular, in terms of turning the natural resources into finished products instead of shipping them away wholesale and buying them back retail.
on Jun 17th, 2011 at 12:25am Report Abuse
jerrymacgp wrote:
When small-business owners and other community leaders were approached to get involved, they declined, expressing concerns that they would be penalized for offending the politicians, and somehow suffer for publicly expressing dissent on such core matters of public policy as access to health care in their community. I observed at the time that this is a symptom of the malaise that is Alberta politics. In a healthy democracy, the politicians act in fear of offending voters, especially those who are influential in the community, and not the other way around. In Alberta, however, voters fear offending their own elected representatives.
While I am diametrically opposed to much of what the Wildrose Alliance party stands for, objectively speaking one potential benefit of their increasing strength might be the legitimatizing of political dissent in this province. To see the Tory hegemony broken or even weakened, even by the more right wing WRA, might just be what Alberta needs.
on Jun 17th, 2011 at 7:49am Report Abuse
Ron wrote:
I, to, much oppose most of the Wildrose platform. I have for years declared that Alberta's "government" must be removed - NOT "weakened" - removed. I see no solution in Wildrose. It would only give encouragement for the future to the P.C.'s extreme faction.
Instead of the continual vacillation between greater autoritarianism and moderate authoritarianism which the P.C.'s have offered for decades, the only way to change the game is to ACTUALLY change it, not merely shuffle the same players to different positions.
History proves categorically that the moribund policies offered by varying shades of authoritarianism do not work for the greater good or in the long term. History is a story of ruling elites trying to suppress the free exchange of ideas by various means. Fear, power and propaganda being chief among these. These methods ultimately always fail.
This is also the story of Alberta. The same old same old does not work, and hasn't worked for many years, but keeps being offered up and accepted by people who are frustrated, but afraid to try the alternative. It is like a battered woman who knows she should leave, but can't quite muster the courage to do so.
But in Alberta, we have "nothing to fear except fear itself", to take a page from F.Roosevelt. The choice is to keep drowning in the same quagmire, or get out and try walking in the forest. Maybe you'll be eaten by a bear: bur maybe you'll find the clearing.
on Jun 18th, 2011 at 11:47am Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
on Jul 4th, 2011 at 2:11pm Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)