The
mantra for the Liberal Party’s renewal can be condensed into two sentences:
"Turn the page and look to the future."
But
with all due respect to the Liberals, I really believe that they should do
the exact opposite: they shouldn’t turn the page before actually reading it,
and they should also look into the past before looking ahead into the
future.
In
fact, it’s in the immediate past where the Libs will find the causes of
their current problems, and it’s in the remote past where they will find the
keys to solve them.
Take
a close look at the page that the Liberals are eager to turn. It is a page
they started writing in 1968, the year that Pierre Elliott Trudeau stormed
the Liberal Party giving it new life, but also the germ that might destroy
it in the new millennium.
The
germ of the disease is called "JR," the acronym for "jealousies and
revenge." To understand the origins of the JR germ, you only have to look at
the names of the people who ran for leadership since 1968 and compare the
list of winners and losers.
In
1968, Trudeau won and John Turner was defeated. In 1984, the loser of 1968,
Turner, became the winner and the loser was Jean Chrétien. In 1990 the
"loser" Chrétien became the winner and Paul Martin became the loser. In
2003, the "loser" Martin became the winner and the new loser was Sheila
Copps.
Unfortunately, the "losers" and the "winners" were never able to set aside
their differences because both sides were affected by the Grit JR germ. And
so it was that the loser was jealous of the winner and plotted revenge; and
the winner put aside jealousy and only practiced revenge.
Of
course, the intensity of the JR germ was not equal in all the losers and
winners.
In
the 1968 race, two names emerged that would play bigger roles in the future
of the Liberal Party: John Turner and Paul Martin Sr. The first played a big
role in the 1980s and the second name would emerge through the son, in the
1990s.
For
more than 15 years, the Liberals enjoyed the glitzy power of Pierre Trudeau
who was strong enough to bury under the ashes the resentments that the 1968
race created. Resentments that grew bigger in 1975 when Turner resigned to
protest the government's policy of mandatory wage and price controls.
From
1968 to 1984, Pierre Trudeau ruled the country and the party; however, while
he was loved by the country (at least for most of the 1970s), he was barely
tolerated by the party's traditional establishment.
Things changed in 1984, after the famous walk in the snow on Feb. 29.
John
Turner was elected but he never received the full cooperation of the Liberal
Party. After the 'walk in the snow' the Liberal Party officially lost its
'innocence,’ meaning the blind loyalty to the leader. The orphans of Pierre
Trudeau, who regrouped around Jean Chrétien, did not miss an opportunity to
embarrass the rusty new leader. Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau intervened
against the policy of the Liberal Party during the Meech Lake debate. "It's
a matter of principles" they were saying.
It
might be true, but it was also a matter of principle for many Liberals who
were against Trudeau's "Quebecization" of Canada, the dismantling of the
National Energy Program, the repatriation of the Constitution and even the
Charter of Rights. The loyalty to the leader always took precedence over the
personal ambitions and their own principles (if this was the case).
I'm
not convinced that Brian Mulroney would have won the 1988 elections if
Turner had the entire Liberal Party behind him. Turner was pushed out and in
1990 the left-overs of the Trudeau era, again regrouped around Jean Chrétien
and took over. It was a kind of déjà vu of the 1968 convention: Pierre
Trudeau was replaced by Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin Sr. replaced by Paul
Martin Jr.
The "Chrétenites"
ruled the country and the party for 10 years and were greatly helped by the
self-inflicted wounds of the almost defunct Progressive Conservative Party.
But
Paul Martin Jr. was not ready to let it go. Moreover, many of the top party
operatives in his group were the same people who had supported John Turner
and were looking for revenge.
Again, the loyalty to the leader was completely ignored, especially because
the members of this group who were trying to restore loyalty were the same
people who had destroyed the loyalty to the previous leader.
The
Liberal Party was sailing happily towards another electoral victory: the
economy was booming, the polls healthy, the separatist movement ailing, and
the opposition non-existent. That was not enough to save Jean Chrétien‹the
Martinites eventually succeeded in doing what the other parties failed to do
in 1993, 1997, and 2000. They defeated their leader and their government.
However, the "Chrétienites" challenged the lack of loyalty to their leader
in a discreet way because they knew it was wrong. But the Martinites were so
ruthless that they were fighting people close to Chrétien with the same
venom normally reserved for political enemies found in other political
organizations. Of course, many of the "Chrétienites" returned the courtesy
in the last election.
So,
today the Martinites have been discredited and the 'Chrétienites' are
running on empty, while members of the Liberal Party’s nobility are
scrambling to find a new leader and trying to galvanize the confused
rank-and-file Liberal Party members with the slogan "Let's turn the page and
look towards the future."
But
which future? Which leader? They are so desperate that they’re resorting to
those called "the tourists in the Liberal Party" to recreate a vacuous
momentum to build their new power.
They’re looking at former NDPers, former Conservatives, and even at former
Canadians for a new figure head to allow them to do what they have done in
the last 20 years to their party and to our country.
I
recently read a guest columnist in one of the major dailies by someone who
suggested the need to go back to the small "l' liberals and the need to give
more impulse to the work of volunteers. This suggestion, however, comes from
the same group of people who destroyed the work of volunteers in the Liberal
Party when they realized that they could not manipulate them any longer.
They
ended up putting the party in the hands of paid mercenaries: it was more
expensive, but easier to control. Now they’re telling to the Liberal people
to forget about the past and look to the future.
On
the other hand, there are others, like the group behind the so-called "King
Edward Accord," who are trying to look to the past, to put aside their
differences and to move forward. On this event, a party planned for March 23
in honour of Sheila Copps, I will reserve my judgment.
If it
turns out to be an opportunity to "absolve" one side and condemn the other,
it would only be a waste of time. In fact, it would have a negative effect,
increase the rivalry and perpetuate the feud.
It
might be a coincidence, but it was Sheila Copps who was the "loser" during
the last Liberal convention against the winner Paul Martin.
So
will the "King Edward Accord" be a peace-making event, or just another
chapter of the Liberal feud that started in 1968? The answer will be in the
speech that Sheila Copps will deliver on March 23.
If
they do not understand that, they can elect whoever they want as a new
leader. After the vote, half of the Liberal Party goes underground preparing
to defeat the other half, as it’s happened since 1984.
