Category: Chairman’s Desk

It’s the stuff political dreams are made of.

A resounding mandate born of a strategic and methodical campaign. A headless opposition — divided in allegiance, confused in direction, adrift. A feeling, perhaps even a certainty, that it is the very best of times. And yet, in the political world, it takes precious little for the dream to spoil and the tale to turn cautionary.

For Ontario’s recently re-elected Progressive Conservative government to avoid such a fate and to maintain the confidence of its electorate, they must be wary of the pitfalls that have befallen past governments in similar, seemingly unassailable positions.

Doing so is simple, but not easy. It requires the exercise of an uncommon level of vigilance to combat the tendencies of arrogance and recklessness that so often accompany major political victories. History teaches that large majority governments, particularly those without effective partisan opposition, are prone to the miscalculations that quickly sow the seeds of their eventual defeat.

For evidence, Premier Doug Ford’s government need look no further than the fate of their federal cousins after the infamous 1988 “free-trade election.” With a victory that the New York Times characterized as a “Stunning Reversal” in their front page headline the next day, former prime minister Brian Mulroney’s win could not have been sweeter. With that majority in hand and the two main opposition parties leaderless, the quest to build a free-trade market across the 49th parallel lay open. And yet, only five short years later, the federal Progressive Conservative party was reduced to two seats — in other words, rubble.

The greater the triumph, the greater the fall.

In crises, the deadliest poison is hubris — and along with it, a sense of invincibility, a failure to anticipate adversity and to plan long-term. Second-term majority governments often fall into this trap when they abandon not only the principles but the very political acuity that won them their power.

During its first term, the Ford government proved highly responsive to public opinion, demonstrating a willingness to make concessions and reverse course on several key issues, including its response to the pandemic. This dexterity — some would say humility — surprised many, and in Ford’s view, significantly contributed to his party’s re-election.

But that was then. Today, the premier and his government face the daunting dual challenges of ballooning inflation and a looming recession — circumstances that will require the government to be more politically adept than ever. For example, research by our firm Navigator found that three-quarters of Ontarians are convinced the provincial government can act to tame inflation, ascribing more tools to the government than they actually have.

Into the expanding bag of issues, throw gas prices, an overburdened health-care system and the rising challenge of affordability. Add to it the risk of a media that will be emboldened and increasingly hostile given the lack of an effective opposition, and before you know it a bunker mentality will set in. It happens all the time in second-term governments, and it will take relentless discipline to prevent it.

The best recipe to avoid the worst of times is for the Ford government to ignore the happy circumstance of a weak opposition, instead employing the same political calculus that has been essential to their triumphs thus far. One that has been wedded both to the guidance of public opinion, yet at the same time resilient to strong criticism.

The simple fact is that this government won a larger majority with fewer votes. As history shows, it’s a victory that could turn to a crushing defeat in four short years without restraint, a clear vision and an appetite to solve once-in-a-lifetime challenges.

The opening weeks of a rare summertime sitting of Ontario’s legislature at the “Pink Palace” will provide the first clue as to how much heed they will pay to the cautionary lessons of those majorities past, once seemingly indestructible.

Here is a useful suggestion for a vexing problem of voter engagement and specifically the historically low turnout rate in the Ontario election just finished.

This isn’t just an issue for political science academics. It is a problem for all of us, as it threatens the very legitimacy of our governments.

So here is a suggestion: at every polling station, why don’t we set up a box for children to deposit their votes, right next to the official ballot box? Of course, those “votes” would not contribute to the outcome of the election. Rather, they would allow those below the official voting age to begin to understand the importance of voting, and to build an inculcated habit of doing so.

You wouldn’t be able to walk to the polling station with your child without having discussed the election at the dinner table, or in the car when you were driving them to their dance recital.

By the time election day arrived, children would be well acquainted with the issues and the responsibility of voting in a free and democratic society.

Now, this is an idea that I have advanced for years with a spectacular lack of success.

Several objections have been raised to the idea. For example, my own political tribe, the Conservatives, object to it because they think the kids will be brainwashed by left-leaning teachers.

Others argue it would be much easier to just mandate voting and issue fines for nonparticipation, as Australia and others do. Philosophically, I think this idea is rubbish. Surely, thoughtful education and encouragement should trump punishment wherever possible.

Bureaucratic officials say it will be prohibitively expensive to implement. Simply put, this is nonsense. But after all, these objections come from Elections Canada, who can’t even currently administer accessible voting for communities across the country, especially Indigenous ones. All of which points to the feebleness of the bureaucracy. A feebleness which impedes the ability for creative ideas to solve the important challenges before us — challenges which strike at the very core of our democracy.

Efforts have been made to solve this problem. Taylor Gunn at CIVIX and his Student Vote program are doing remarkable work, getting over 260,000 young students to vote in a recent mock youth provincial election. But it isn’t the same.

For decades, Sweden has made mock youth elections an integral part of its democratic process. The country has a remarkably high level of participation, and has continued to strengthen its youth election program in recent years. The latest Swedish election in 2018 saw the highest turnout in 33 years.

To be fair, it’s still unclear how much of that trend can be attributed to youth ballots. Regardless, what the Swedes realize is that the program is key to educating people about democratic principles and engendering politics with a long-term purpose. The experiences of putting serious consideration into politics from a young age — and of being able to see how those considerations might play out several times over before going to the ballot box for real — are invaluable. What’s more, they specifically focus their program on socio-economically disadvantaged areas known for endemic disenfranchisement, something we have a real problem with in Canada.

As any parent will know, no one is better at inspiring good conduct and shaming bad behaviour than their children. I think a democratic equivalent of the campaign to stop smoking or texting while driving will incentivize adults to do better. Children’s frankness might help stipulate against the shenanigans that have crept into our system and turned Canadians off voting.

No longer would there be room for the civically disengaged parent who can’t adequately respond to their child’s new-found political curiosity. Hopefully, it would also give our democracy a longer-term horizon, and encourage our competing politicians to finally prioritize purpose over pugilism.

As the Ontario campaign ads finally fall silent and much of the political rhetoric takes a pause, there is now time, on all sides of the political aisle, for some thoughtful introspection. I hope each of us reflects on the corrosive influence divisive partisanship, hyperbole and ambush politics have had on our collective confidence in our precious system.

Reflection is important because this behaviour is not benign. The proof? More Ontarians than ever stayed home on election night. This month’s provincial election had a record low turnout of 43 per cent. Looking to point a finger for that result? Well, there is more than enough blame to go around: pundits, reporters, media (conventional, new and social), partisan political actors, and the citizens themselves all played a role.

Long-term trust in our system has been actively traded away for a need to achieve short-term wins. Just as many lament the cost of short-termism on Bay Street, so do I lament its toll on our public life.

Unofficial election results indicated that, compared to the 2018 election, the Ontario Progressive Conservatives and the NDP respectively received approximately 413,000 and 818,000 fewer votes this time.

Now all parties are guilty of less-than-stellar behaviour, to be sure. How many times have you heard someone say, “If I conducted myself like that in my workplace, I’d be sacked by lunchtime,” when speaking of behaviour in the legislature?

Many will recall the PC government’s overzealous use of clapping staffers; Steven Del Duca’s focus on phoney PC scandals during the writ period, which culminated with their embarrassing “gravy train” announcement; and Andrea Horwath’s promotion of misinformation about OHIP delisting, which came on the heels of her decision to break agreed-upon COVID-19 protocols in the Ontario legislature in an attempt to vote down government legislation.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that these are the kinds of dodgy political tricks that turn voters off politics.

Now, there is a structural answer to where all this comes from. In political offices, at all orders of government right across the country, you will find the same thing. More opposition researchers and proverbial spin doctors than policy wonks. More people working on the taxpayers’ dime to play silly buggers than to responsibly develop and advance new policy ideas.

Parliaments — founded as deliberative and thoughtful assemblies, places for civil debate and the exchange of ideas — have become circus tents with political theatre, half-truths and personal political attacks in the centre ring.

Like a misplaced gamble on a unicorn stock, the cost of this buffoonery has been the legitimacy and relevance of our democratic systems.

Too often, our elected officials are now forced to focus their efforts on protecting themselves from political punches, rather than talking about the issues that matter most — the cost of living, health care, and housing affordability. Not to mention jobs and the economy. In short, the very issues that got them into power.

So, what to do? For starters, we could professionalize the “political staffer class.” The province’s integrity commissioner, for example, found that political staffers are undertrained and desperate for help.

Not to knock political aides — they are some of the hardest-working people in the country — but our politicians would be better served by staff with experience not just inside politics, but from outside as well.

That’s only the beginning. Politicians need to learn to resist what is currently an insatiable urge to knock their opponents down whenever they can, and think instead about their role in protecting the health of our system for the long run. They need to realize that partisan political blinders really are damaging. That they have, as elected officials, a higher duty.

After all, politics not only can be better — it needs to be better. For all of us.