A look at the political pendulum’s swing

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 09/07/2024 (458 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Is it just me, or does it seem like we’re in times of great political upheaval?

The U.K. just held a whiplash election that saw the Conservatives ousted after 14 years of rule and replaced with a centre-left Labour party that campaigned predominantly on ‘change.’

This is the same party that, five years ago, suffered its worst defeat since 1935. So what happened in the last five years? Did the Labour Party invigorate itself to such a degree that it could go from worst to best?

Not according to many political strategists, who are calling the victory a result of a backlash against the ruling Conservatives. With low voter turnout and the support of only 35 per cent of voters nationwide, it points to a disgruntled population less excited about Labour leader Keir Starmer’s promises and more about his commitment to end the former government’s tenure.

It’s a familiar refrain. People don’t vote in new governments as much as they vote out old ones. We saw it here in Manitoba. It’s almost unimaginable now, but in 2016, our Progressive Conservative party won 40 seats, picking up more than 20 seats from the former NDP government under Greg Selinger.

Then, two years later, in a byelection for St. Boniface after Selinger stepped down, the NDP lost that one too, with the seat going to the Liberals.

Now, after eight years, many of us who got elected in 2016 with the Tories or Liberals couldn’t even get a cup of coffee in the Manitoba legislature, never mind hold office. (I’m being facetious, of course. Just making a point—I’m sure the coffee is still on for any of us who wanted to return and watch from the sidelines.)

What’s true is that anyone involved in politics knows to hang on dearly and expect turbulence from a wildly swinging pendulum. Incrementalism is no longer, if it ever was, part of the times.

Liberals at the federal level are about to find that out, too, as our country seems set on a massive swapping out of an old government.

Justin Trudeau’s popularity just nine years ago made him not just a source of patriotic pride, but seemingly the envy of the free world.

Observers said he had the world at his feet: a loyal, majority caucus, intelligent cabinet ministers, and an adoring public. Indeed, time has taken its toll.

Some might say Trudeau squandered his political capital away, just as they once said that about the Manitoba PCs, or the Tories in the U.K. But is it just the inevitable conclusion for any political leader, regardless of ideological stripe, to eventually fall out of favour? Perhaps.

With so much at stake, and so many decisions being made on an hourly basis, often in a vacuum, it’s no wonder leaders eventually falter. Now, with much talk being given to whether the Liberals should swap out its leader before the next election, it seems futile.

With hardly a year before the writ drops, and with the Liberals so far down in the polls, it would be nearly impossible for someone to change the party brand enough to convince a disgruntled electorate.

That’s because the party brand was crafted, mainly, in Trudeau’s image.

And therein lies the problem—not just with the federal Liberals, but with all political parties in general. Leaders have concentrated too much power in their office, giving the public the rightful perspective that government — and its party — is fashioned in their own name, such as the Trudeau government, the Stefanson/Pallister government, and now the Kinew government.

Policy decisions often get made behind closed doors with little airing among the caucus, and even less among the people who put them there in the first place.

Further, the phenomenon of a ‘whipped vote’ removes the ability for voters to often know how their representative feels on any given subject, with individualism lost to the leader’s brand.

Fortunes then rise and fall almost exclusively with the leader.

Who’s to say if a more inclusive style would prevent this massive pendulum swing, just as it’s impossible to say if the frequency in which we swap out governments is necessarily a bad thing. Change, even when it’s just for its own sake, can often be good.

Yet wouldn’t it be even better if we felt as though our say counted for more — that the representatives we vote for at the local level are empowered to do the job we ask of them, instead of what their leader asks?

It may not slow the pendulum, but it would make for a more meaningful ride.