The Revolving Door of Leadership

There was a time not long ago when a leader especially a federal leader could expect at least two election campaigns.  It was almost common courtesy voters liked a first date, only the most exceptionally charming of politicians would be rewarded with a majority government on the first go round.  Losers were expected to stick around for the good of the party and the familiarity of the electorate. Thus, John Turner could suffer the worst defeat in history of a sitting Government and live to fight the 1988 Free Trade election, albeit with a struggle. Stanfield could lose two elections in a row to Trudeau and fight a third; Diefenbaker could lose two elections and put up a credible fight to continue for a third.  Provincially leaders tended to change more frequently but, Carole James lost convincingly twice to Gordon campbell and would have given Christy a run for her money if a caucus revolt had not forced her to reconsider her future.   Something changed. I believe it was Jean Chretien's poor grace after losing the 1984 leadership race to John Turner.  Instead of being a good team player Mr. Chretien sulked and openly planned a caucus revolt and leadership challenge whilst Mr. Turner was burying his mother.  I think it safe to say this marked a new low in Canadian politics and helps inform us why it has decreased in civility ever since.  Chretien's "ends justify the means" philosophy ended the gentlemanly sport or at least the perception of it and turned politics and leadership politics especially into a no-holds-barred affair where "if you aren't with 'em you're against them" mentality prevailed.  

The question must be asked if we are now in the era of a revolving door of leadership; Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, Audrey MacLaughlin. In fact the only Opposition Leader to lose a general election and live and fight another day has been Stephen Harper who lost the 2004 election against Paul Martin who eked out a minority government then successfully secured his own minority government in the 2006 election. Interim leadership has become increasingly popular as well.  When Turner resigned in 1990 giving the interim leadership and with it the perks of Stornoway and a car allowance to Herb Grey was as much as a reward to Mr. Grey for his many dignified years of service as making a clean break with the past.  Today it seems people already want Mulcair to renounce the interim leadership he now possesses and many have called for a new interim leader entirely as if, changing Mulcair's status from leader, to out-going leader was not enough.

This is a dangerous game I think. Jack Layton was successful in the end because over the course of four general election campaigns voters had got to "know" him. Layton commonly topped polls of politicians one would most like to have a beer with.  Trust is not something given lightly by people but, earned.  Layton's secret was to slowly build gaining the trust of Canadians one voter at a time, steadily improving the NDP's showing until he changed history.  Dumping Mulcair (full disclosure: I thought Mulcair should have resigned on Oct. 20th)  negates whatever brand and benefit Mulcair brought to the party.  At 13% in the polls  clearly something had to change but, one wonders if three years hence with 6 months to go before an election the number of Canadians who can name the NDP leader will be lower than today? If so dumping Mulcair may not look like a wise decision.