Why do politicians cling to power?

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/10/2024 (342 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Wise political party leaders know when it is time to go. They may have run out of ideas. They may lack the commitment and energy to carry on. They may recognize they have become so unpopular that nothing can be done to improve their standing with voters. They may have come to the realization they are not indispensable. They may recognize there is life after politics, including less pressure, more time with family and the opportunity to embark on new adventures.

They may want to leave on a high note, not after a humiliating defeat which overshadows their accomplishments and leaves their party in a deep political hole.

All leaders must have a certain amount of appetite for power, as well as a need for achievement and recognition. It takes ambition to enter the political arena and to climb to the top rung on the political ladder. Empirical studies indicate ambition is associated with such personality traits as narcissism and “Machiavellianism,” meaning a desire to direct and control others.

Psychological studies suggest that after 10 or more years in power, the personalities of leaders often change. They develop a “hubris syndrome,” which involves an inflated and embellished view of themselves and their capabilities.

Arrogance, entitlement and a sense of indispensability set in. They become addicted to the trappings of power, including the adrenaline rush of being at the centre of the action.

The consequence is that leaders too often overstay both their usefulness in terms of successful governing and their welcome with the voting public. Too many of them plead for understanding and to be given another chance, often claiming there is more to be done on their agenda or that opposing leaders and their parties represent a danger to the public good.

There is a failure to recognize the end is coming and it could involve speed and ferocity.

This preamble leads me to the question of whether Justin Trudeau will stay or go as Liberal party leader. For four related reasons I think he will stay.

First, he has confidence in his own capabilities based on what he regards as an effective performance leading the country for nearly a decade through a range of major challenges: a Trump presidency, a pandemic, an economic downturn, an affordability crisis, a drugs and crime crisis, Indigenous reconciliation, wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and the list goes on.

In some interviews, Trudeau has complained that his critics focus too much on his personal unpopularity and not enough on the policy accomplishments of his governments. He is not inclined to acknowledge that his several well publicized ethical transgressions — like the WE charity controversy — and his unforced errors, like spending the first Truth and Reconciliation Day on a beach in Tofino — suggest a blind spot in terms of awareness of how others see his behaviour and the damage he has done to the political fortunes of his party.

Second, Trudeau is a fierce competitor who dislikes backing down from a fight (remember his victory in the 2012 charity boxing match against a Conservative senator). Early in his political career, he was dismissed as a lightweight, but he went on to win a seat from the Bloc, captured the leadership of the Liberal party, and led it from third place to one majority and two minority government victories.

He seems to derive energy from defying expectations. He believes he can beat Pierre Poilievre (whom he disrespects) and the Conservatives in the next election despite the long odds on this happening. The threat Poilievre represents to his policy legacies provides further motivation to stay.

Third, the critics of Trudeau in caucus and beyond underestimate the difficulty of removing a party leader who is also prime minister. An open revolt or even an attempted quiet coup goes against the strong norms of loyalty to the leader and the party. Liberals believe it is the Conservatives who engage in destructive infighting over leadership. Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal caucus has not used the Reform Act passed by Parliament which allows for the creation of a formal process within caucus to trigger a leadership review.

Fourth, there is no high-profile MP in cabinet or caucus or within the Liberal party at large who represents an obvious successor to Trudeau and who would have a better prospect of doing well in a general election, which must be held by October 2025. Unlike the end of the Chrétien era in the early 2000s, there is presently no leadership aspirant, like Paul Martin back then, around whom the caucus dissidents could coalesce. There is not a lot of time to replace Trudeau and to convince voters that his successor represents new policy directions.

There are very few wise leaders who voluntarily retire. Like most, Trudeau is not likely to leave willingly. The loss of his marriage may have removed a personal reason to go.

His supporters in caucus, on his political staff and in the party at large believe he is a strong campaigner who is most effective when his political back is against the wall. Realists among them probably calculate that another minority government — whether Liberal or Conservative — is the most optimistic outcome to be expected in the election, whenever it comes.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.