Why We Need a Tory Majority

Why We Need a Tory Majority

Description image by Richard Albert Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Council for Democracy; Professor, Boston College Law School.
  • First Posted: Oct 07 2009 13:01 PM
  • Updated: 8 months ago

The Conservatives want it, the Liberals need it, and a healthy Canadian democracy depends upon it.

When Brian Mulroney rode a rising conservative tide to the biggest majority government in Canadian history 25 years ago, he was lauded for finally breaking the Liberal deadbolt on the gates to 24 Sussex. Not since John Diefenbaker's triumph in 1958 had the political right formed a majority government.

But Mulroney's election was not as much a victory for him or his party as it was for Canada and our democratic institutions. Today, with an election looming on the horizon, the best argument for a Conservative majority is neither that Stephen Harper wants one nor that the Conservative Party has earned one, but rather that Canada needs one.

Say what you will about Brian Mulroney – and we can certainly find much to critique in his record as prime minister – but his political acumen remains unrivalled among modern conservative politicians. That he managed to fashion an improbable coalition among conservative liberals, liberal conservatives, libertarians, soft nationalists in Quebec, and reformers in the west – an unlikely fusion of interests that he sustained for nearly a decade – is a testament to his deft touch.

Mulroney's unprecedented majority election in 1984 and re-election in 1988 had three important consequences for democracy in Canada.

First, it made Canadian federal politics competitive. Having grown accustomed to winning and taken to calling itself Canada's natural governing party, the Liberal Party governed Canada for all but 20 of the 88 years from 1896 to 1984. Mulroney brought an end to the reign of undisputed Liberal supremacy.

Second, Mulroney's election humbled the Liberal Party. Devastated and having won merely 40 seats in 1984, the Liberal Party was relegated to the political wilderness, where it turned to the hard work of rebuilding itself, its structure and its brand, and most importantly to reconnecting with Canadians whose support it had for too long taken for granted.

And third, Mulroney's election rewarded conservatives for their toil and labour over the years. There is nothing more dispiriting than investing time, energy, and emotion in a contest whose outcome is determined even before the puck drops. That was the lamentable fate of Conservative activists prior to 1984. But not with Mulroney at the helm.

The great paradox of Mulroney's tenure as prime minister is that he reshaped the Canadian political landscape both when he entered the scene as when he exited it. The decimation of the Progressive Conservative Party, the rise of the Reform Party, the creation of the Bloc Quebecois, and even the renewal of the Liberal Party – Mulroney was the catalyst for each of them.

And though she could have been a great prime minister, Kim Campbell inherited a poisoned chalice from Mulroney that hangs as an albatross around her neck to this day.

Years later, Conservatives have finally returned to power after a long journey. But their work is not quite done because much of Canada still operates under the assumption that the Liberal Party should govern by default. According to the conventional wisdom, Canadians did not vote affirmatively for the Conservative Party in 2006 but rather to send the Liberal Party to the penalty box.

A similar narrative is thought to explain the 2008 election: the Conservative Party did not earn the trust of Canadians but was nevertheless re-elected only because the Liberal Party was not yet ready to return to its rightful role as Canada's majority governing party.

In short, the baseline premise in Canada, throughout history and today, is that it is wrong to vote for the right.

A Conservative majority government would go a long way toward showing that we in Canada have progressed beyond the simple shorthand that insists that right is wrong.

By returning the Conservatives to Ottawa with a majority, we would put the Conservative Party on the same footing as the Liberal Party, both would be seen in the eyes of Canadians as viable governing parties, and we would finally be able to cast aside the flawed presumption that there is indeed such a thing as a natural governing party in Canada.

Whether you wear Conservative blue or Liberal red, the next election is an opportunity unlike any other to finally return competitive balance to Canadian politics.

TAGS: Politics

Comments

Re:Marks

rules of engagement

<p>Umm, no.<p><p> If we really want to improve Canadian democracy, what we need is a reformation of our current first-past-the-post political system that was designed for two parties and move forward into the reality of multi-party politics.<p><p> This would accomplish a few positive things, most importantly it would force the governance towards the centre over time, as politicians were forced to accommodate views other than their own, or be consigned to the trip to the political wilderness that inflexible ideologues of all stripes deserve. <p><p> But then again Mr. Albert's response to things political he doesn't like, such at the Bloc Quebecois, is to propose banning it. Which hardly seems like the road to political freedom to me.<p><p> Oh, by the way, I grow increasingly suspicious of groups like this, because it's all too easy to set up some sort of astroturf organization. Can anyone tell me if The Mark bothers to check out the bona fides of these ostensibly "grassroots" organizations?<p><p>

Gord Gilmour

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment, Gord. I agree with you 100% that it would be a terrible idea to ban the Bloc Quebecois--which is precisely why I have written that part of what makes Canada great is that it does not ban political parties like the Bloc. You can read the full piece on The Mark at this address: http://themarknews.com/articles/159-ban-the-bloc.

Richard Albert

Richard, Mea culpa. I'm guilty of reading a headline and making an erroneous assumption. Good piece, by the way, even if I do disagree with it.

Gord Gilmour

LATEST NEWS

Latino Employment in U.S. Up To Pre-Recession Levels

Half of net new jobs in the U.S. since 2...

India Completes First Polio-Free Year

Education programs geared toward dispell...

PETA Lawsuit Names Five Orcas as Plaintiffs

Do we really want the ocean's smartest p...

Santorum Sweeps Minnesota, Colorado, Missouri

The Republican race is wide open once ag...

Last First World War Veteran Dies

Florence Green, 1901-2012....

Wal-Mart vs. Target, Canadian Version

Wal-Mart expansion signals a renewed rac...

Iran Bans Simpsons Toys

But Superman and Spider-Man are fine bec...

Chilling Video of Homs Emerges as Syrian Shelling Ramps Up

Hundreds of civilians in the seat of the...

760 Million-Year-Old Sponges Were World's First Animals

A new discovery puts the date of the fir...

Celine Dion's Husband Buys Schwartz's Deli

Thousands of Montrealers now forced to d...

Poll Suggests Obama Has Clear Edge over Romney

Obama's approval ratings might not be to...

play

FEATURED VIDEO

This is apparently what news anchors (at least cool ones) do during commercial breaks.  Reminiscent of the coordinated dance routines our own news editor Mike Barber performs after a few beers.

The Life of a News Anchor: Better Than You Thought

This is apparently what news anchors (at least cool ones) do during commercial breaks. Reminiscent of the coordinated dance routines our own news editor Mike Barber performs after a few beers.