Early election call exploited voter cynicism

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/09/2019 (2234 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Canada and other western democracies are experiencing a rise in public cynicism about voting and our democratic institutions. In Manitoba, the recent provincial election is a case study for how and why this is happening.

The 2019 election was marred by historically low voter turnout. Only 55.4 per cent of registered voters cast a ballot, down from 57 per cent in 2016. As Free Press columnist Dan Lett recently reported, this is the second-worst turnout since 1981, and despite significant growth in the number of registered voters, the number of ballots cast was lower than any election during the 1980s and 1990s.

The dismal turnout reflects growing cynicism about politicians and political parties. A CBC News poll conducted earlier this year found that nearly half of Canadians feel no party represents what they care about most. A staggering 88 per cent said politicians care more about staying in power than doing what’s right.

Premier Brian Pallister’s decision to call an early election was a perfect recipe for brewing more of such cynicism, and he used it to his advantage.

The election was called when it was as a means of minimizing voter engagement in the democratic process. Pallister broke the spirit and intent of the fixed-date election law by calling it more than a year early, during the dog days of summer. As an astute politician with decades of experience, surely he knew this would lower voter turnout and make it challenging for the Opposition to gain momentum.

In a perfect world, such manipulation of the law and electorate would have backfired and become a ballot-box issue.

In practice, the law tends to enable politicians who can use cynicism to give themselves an electoral advantage. As we see in the case of U.S. President Donald Trump, the violation of democratic rules and norms can be effective politics because it encourages the public to think of transgressions as a “both sides” issue.

He can flagrantly act in his own self-interest and get away with it; because of widespread public cynicism regarding all politicians, he can point across the aisle and claim “the other option isn’t any better.”

“Both-sides-ism” is a residual consequence of anti-democratic actions that generate cynicism about elections and candidates for public office. In the case of Pallister, his bet was that even if he drew the ire of voters for calling an early election, it wouldn’t be enough to make it a ballot-box issue. After all, most voters are already cynical about the motives of all politicians; why would they change their vote on this issue if they believe the other options would have done the same thing if given the opportunity?

Pallister was right on this gamble. Even though voters knew he called an early election to give himself an advantage, he was not clearly punished for it. More likely, our democracy and politics as a whole will wear the resulting voter discontent, and the stain covers everyone.

Because many voters believe “all politicians are just in it for themselves,” concerns were likely downplayed with a rationale of false equivalency. We hear this in common refrains of “politics is a dirty game; everyone plays dirty to win it” and “all parties will do anything to get elected.”

False equivalency is a problem, because the fact of the matter is Pallister made the decision to break the fixed-date election law. His predecessor did not, and we don’t know what future premiers will do, either, if the law stays the same. Pallister should wear it, not everyone else.

Unfortunately, mainstream punditry often overlooks this. Instead, because the gamble worked out in Pallister’s favour, we are encouraged to think most Manitobans were OK with an early election. One pundit called it a “brilliant” re-election strategy because no one was paying attention.

This is not a healthy message to send to the body politic. It produces a toxic narrative that enables those who break democratic norms, and it encourages absenteeism from elections. It’s reflected in low voter turnout and narratives that reinforce the perception of a boring campaign that was always guaranteed to return Pallister to the premier’s office.

A healthy message for democracy would encourage voters to feel invested in our political system, and recognize that lots of well-meaning people run for office with the intention of serving the public interest.

Of course, history is full of examples of politicians who act against the best interests of our democracy, and get re-elected doing it. Pallister is not alone in this. However, instead of allowing ourselves to become cynical, we should pause to reflect on who elect to office, and why we should demand better next time.

If we want to stop the cynicism plaguing our democracy, we have to hold to account those who benefit from it. We have to pick out the bad seeds, and help the good ones grow.

In the words of Jack Layton, “Let us be hopeful, loving and optimistic, and we’ll change the world.” Those words ring truer than ever before in the aftermath of an election that encouraged many Manitobans to feel the opposite.

Matt Austman is a Winnipeg communications professional. He holds an MA in political science from York University.