At a superficial level, the comparison is enticing. The election pitted an incumbent prime minister, who had previously been a broadly successful finance minister waiting impatiently in the wings for the top man to move on so that he could move in, against an energetic young Conservative leader, who had inherited a party battered by a series of election defeats, yet had few qualms in dragging it towards the political centre. The country initially appeared inclined to stick with “ the devil you know”, but, as the contest went on, decided that “time for a change” was a more appealing message. So out with the old and in with the new. First, Canada. Later on, perhaps, Britain.
This is certainly how it seemed to Michael Howard as he assessed these election results yesterday. He insisted that the comparisons between Paul Martin, the defeated centre-left Prime Minister, and Gordon Brown were instructive and that similarities shared by Stephen Harper, the incoming Conservative Prime Minister, and David Cameron were no less compelling.
This might prove to be the case, but it is hardly automatic. Mr Martin’s demise can largely be blamed on the behaviour of his party when it was led by Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister from 1993 to 2003, a colourless figure who managed the rare feat of being neither coherent nor convincing in both English and French and who bequeathed to his successor a serious corruption scandal. It was this affair that forced Mr Martin to hold an election, and his plight intensified when, in the midst of the campaign, a further police investigation was launched into the affairs of senior Liberal Party officials. Whatever else might be said about him, Tony Blair is hardly another Mr Chrétien.
Nor is Mr Harper necessarily poised to sweep all before him. He plainly has a mandate to “clean up” Canadian politics, yet in other areas he will have to proceed with caution. He will preside over a minority government that will have to rely on the tacit support of either the left-leaning New Democrats and the unpredictable Bloc Quebecois, which champions Quebec’s sovereignty. He might be helped by the disarray in his opponents’ ranks, but a further election in the next two years is perfectly possible. Mr Harper has, nevertheless, acquired an opportunity to reduce tax, to ease relations between the centre and the provinces and to mend fences with the United States.
The real lessons of the Canadian result hold for most democracies. An administration that looks tired is often put to sleep by the electorate. The longer any party is in power, the more the danger of abuse of power. Politicians caught with their hand in the till are likely to be out on their ear. In most instances, an opposition has to have something positive to say as well as exploiting the negative impression of those who hold office.
Advertisement
To contend, as Mr Howard did, that the Canadian outcome is part of a global shift to the right is no more credible than stating that the Bolivian ballot is part of a surge for the Left. Whether this really is a watershed election for Canada depends solely on Mr Harper’s performance as Prime Minister.