|
|Monday May 24, 2004 |
BACK |
NEXT
IT'S
ABOUT LEADERSHIP
Martin hopes to win election
doing exactly what he hopes Canadians will not do: gamble
By
the time this week's Monday paper hits the streets, Prime Minister Paul
Martin has cast the dice for the most important gamble of his political
life. Elections are always difficult to predict, however, an educated guess
is always acceptable. We can count on polls and our political judgment. This
time the only "educated" prediction we can make is that Gilles Duceppe won't
be the next Prime Minister of Canada. Okay, Jack Layton doesn't have many
chances either. However, that is as far we can go in predicting the outcome
of the upcoming June 28 political consultation. All the rest is up in the
air. And the "rest" narrows down to two names: Paul Martin and Stephen
Harper. In fact, I'd even go further and say one name: Stephen Harper.
The
snapshot of the present political situation can be summarized with what one
gas bar attendant told me last week while I was getting gas in the Niagara
Peninsula: "Liberals are all crooked. Look at what they did with the
sponsorship program and yesterday with the budget in Ontario. However, I
admire them for the courage they showed standing up to the Americans. With
the decision not to go to war in Iraq, they saved Canadian lives;
furthermore I have had a job for the last five years."
As
I was leaving he asked me: "By the way, what's the name of the other guy,
the new leader of the other party? Right, Mr. Harper. What do you thing
about him?"
His
words stuck in my mind because they captured a widespread feeling out there
among the many people I've talked to over the last few months. First, he was
talking about "Liberals," not Mr. Martin's or Chrétien's Liberals. Second,
he was upset with the scandals but not unhappy about Liberal politics: he
was working and he liked the foreign affairs politics because they "saved
Canadian lives." Third, there was a connection between national and
provincial politics. Fourth, he did not know "the other guy," Stephen
Harper, but was interested in knowing more about him.
In
the last few weeks, I've heard similar comments more and more frequently.
This, to me, means that the heart of the electorate is already set towards a
change. But the electorate's brain, however, is still stopping them from
making a decision. Canadians want a change, but not a gamble. And Stephen
Harper is still a gamble.
A
federal election campaign is not the proper place to explain policies:
people are too busy, media are too superficial, and politicians have better
things to do than preparing programs. This means that an election, this time
more then ever, is about leadership.
The
electorate, unfortunately, has accepted the notion that politicians "might"
lie and steal; what they're not ready to accept is a leader with extreme
views. The campaign might narrow down to a simple choice: do you prefer a
government that steals "some" money, but protects Canadian lives by not
sending troops in Iraq, or a government that promotes honesty, but will join
U.S. President George Bush in his foreign politics?
If
this is the case, Mr. Harper is in trouble because promises of honesty from
politicians during a campaign are not a currency Canadians will bank on. If
Mr. Harper keeps campaigning on the "honesty ticket" he will lose the
election. The honesty issue is the one Liberals have to be concerned of.
What Canadians fear about Mr. Harper is the perception of his radical views.
I
remember in 1999, when the Ontario electorate was upset with Mike Harris'
tough policies. The then leader of the opposition, Liberal Dalton McGuinty,
based his campaign on reassuring the electorate that his government was not
going to be like that. He lost because he was dealing with an issue that
belonged to Harris, not to him: the electorate was concerned about Mr.
McGuinty's ability not being good enough to lead the province, not his
capacity to be mellow. The Conservatives understood that and won the
election because they convinced Ontarians that McGuinty "was not up to the
job."
I
believe Mr. Harper is making the same mistake: he's too busy destroying the
Liberals and Mr. Martin's credibility, hoping that Canadians will vote for
him by default.
I
believe the electorate is well beyond that point: the question mark with the
voters is about him, not Mr. Martin. And the question is not about honesty,
but about his capacity to represent the typical "radically moderate views"
of the average Canadian.
With
the three major Canadian provinces, Ontario, Québec and British Columbia,
showcasing three unpopular Liberal governments, it is safe to say that the
electorate is not in love with the Liberals and, even if they are not
completely disapproving their policies, they want a change.
Mr.
Martin is a known entity with the electorate; people already know what they
like and what they don't like about him. However, Canadians want a change,
not a gamble. It's ironic; Mr. Martin hopes to win the election doing
exactly what he hopes Canadians will not do: gambling.
PS:
talking about gambling politicians, the one that is risking the most is
David Miller, the major of Toronto. Last week he has snubbed Prime Minister
Paul Martin not showing up at the announcement for the development of
Toronto Waterfront. He wants the federal government to help him to cope with
the potential lawsuits related to his decision to build the bridge to the
islands. "Liberals are making a big mistake not cooperating with us, right
in the middle of a federal election" a Toronto administrator told The Hill
Times last
week.
They might be right, however, the person that is going to lose the most by
the fight, is David Miller. In fact, if the Liberals win the elections, he
can forget about the much needed cooperation with the federal government to
solve his problems in the city. And, if the Liberals lose, he can rest
assured that he is not going to have a better deal with the government of
Stephen Harper. This is a gamble that Miller can win only if Jack Layton is
going to be the next Prime Minister of Canada. Good luck. |
