How to pick a Party Leader
I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." - Frank Herbert
In 2017 the federal New Democratic Party selected Jagmeet Singh as their leader, replacing Thomas Mulcair who had been kicked to the curb following the 2015 federal election. Many true believers had expected the NDP to remain as the Official Opposition, if not form government. Sadly, for Mulcair at least, lightening rarely strikes twice and they returned to third party status as the Liberals got their mojo back.
While not actually in federal politics at the time – Singh remained a member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament until securing the leadership – his candidacy garnered a lot of media attention. Aside from any policies he may have espoused he was young, good looking, flashy, and a racial minority; the political equivalent of curb appeal in real estate. However, during the leadership race some unnamed NDP members raised concerns that, as a practicing Sikh, Singh would not be well received in Quebec and could hurt the party's prospects in future elections.
This resulted in a flurry of outraged commentary in the media, as many in the commentariat took this as proof of racism in Quebec or Canada (a stretch as the issue seemed localized to Quebec), with some stating that to even to raise such a concern was in itself racist (a claim that needs examination). As I recall, the fervor died down fairly quickly and Jagmeet Singh was elected leader despite any misgivings some may have harboured. Now, the NDP hasn't been tearing up the electoral landscape in Quebec since then. But there could be many reasons for that.
The episode got me thinking about what factors party members should take into consideration when selecting a new leader. As the Liberal Party of Canada is now launching into a leadership race this seems topical. The LPC forming government in the next election is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely. But the upcoming leadership process could make the difference between Opposition, 3rd party, 4th party, or loosing official party status. Thus the stakes are high.
So, what are the qualities of a good party leader? I see three main considerations a rational actor should consider in casting a vote.
Ideology
This one is pretty obvious; you want someone whose policy proposals you agree with. Given that you are a member of a party which is selecting a new leader, presumably you are already basically on the same page. But there are many nuances of interpretation, degrees of implementation, and issues of priority in going from an ideological position to an actual policy platform.
In a party election – just like a general election – you need to pick from what is on offer. Unless you are extremely lucky, or a true sheep, you won't agree with every single aspect of any candidate's platform. It therefore isn't as simple as "My party stands for principles X, Y and Z".
You may not actually agree with principle Y while being fully supportive of X and Z. And how do you see them being implemented? How much is enough and how far is too far? For example:
If X is increasing OAS payments; by how much and who gets it (eligibility age, income testing level)?
If Z is increased military spending; how much, how fast, and on what capabilities?
Then there is the question of priorities. You believe that all three are important, but they can't all be implemented – or the country can't afford them all – at the same time. Do you go hard on X, lay the groundwork for Y, and set aside Z for now? Or some other order? Or do you reject the feasibility argument and go for it all regardless of the cost?
Lastly you can't ignore the views of the broader population outside your party. Is the general population likely to accept an idea? Does this leadership candidate propose an "electable platform"?
Making a choice is therefore one of compromise. You are looking for a candidate who aligns with your priorities and preferences; no essential elements are missing, and no unacceptable elements are proposed. This mirrors the decision process in a general election.
However in a party leadership contest there is the added complication of anticipating the broader population’s reaction; do you vote for the platform that you feel is best in accordance with your principles, or the one that is likely to meet with the best electoral outcome in a general election?
In the upcoming leadership contest, I think the core question for the Liberals will be the one of Progressive vs Centrist policies. Does the party maintain the course set in the last decade of 'Proudly Progressive' policies mirroring the NDP, or do they return to an ideology someone like Martin, Chretien, or Trudeau Snr would recognize as liberal? There is an argument circulating that there is no room for a centrist party in the current Canadian political landscape. I am not convinced and hope that isn't the case. But the question for LPC “Registered Liberals” will be – do they believe it?
Electability
The Main Thing Is Honesty. If You Can Fake That, You’ve Got It Made.
In a general election you (in theory) just vote for a candidate running in your riding, presumably based on the policies he or she advocates and your assessment of their character. Whichever party elects the most MPs just 'happens' to form government with their leader as Prime Minister. Reality is of course rather different. In practice, the vast majority vote for a party and the leader is the spokesperson; selling the party's platform and whose personality is the deciding factor.
There is no formula for what makes a party leader resonate with voters. Some studies have indicated that physical attractiveness (the "beauty premium") can sway voters but the impact seems limited depending on the scenario. In 2015 Justin Trudeau was seen as attractive and his father sparked "Trudeaumania" (although I suspect more due to attitude than conventional good looks). However many successful politicians have been far from classically attractive.
Personality is a major factor and being a good communicator or retail politician is clearly important. However Stephen Harper was successful despite not being stellar in this area. Perhaps if he had been more personable he'd have been able to retain government for another term?
Then there is the double-edged sword of experience and the baggage a candidate carries. Experience can be a selling point. However a leader's background can provide attack lines in a general election. Although professionally accomplished, Michael Ignatieff was successfully attacked for spending most of his adult life in the USA. However, despite his limited time as a MP, targeting Justin Trudeau's lack of experience was not successful.
And yes, identity is a factor. Some have said that the LPC must select a woman as leader since the party has yet to do so, and due to Justin Trudeau's "feminist PM" rhetoric. A woman as leader would definitely catch attention and energize many in the electorate. As well, a man verbally attacking a woman is not acceptable in the way a man doing the same to another man is. So much for gender equality, I guess. In a general election Pierre Poilievre, whose combative style still rubs many the wrong way, would need to be more careful if faced with a female Liberal leader. Advantage Liberals.
Despite any concerns which may have existed in 2017, Jagmeet Singh not being Caucasian fit with the identity politics focus of the NDP's progressive base and garnered the NDP leadership contest media coverage it would not have otherwise received. Similarly, much of Canadian media went gaga for Annamie Paul as leader of the Green Party. This may be a negative for some, but it is clearly a positive for much of our media and many voters.
Then there is the Quebec factor. It has been mentioned in recent weeks that the LPC has a tradition of alternating leaders, French and English. However Quebec voters en masse don't appear to support a party if the leader doesn't have a substantial connection to the province. Since 1968 only two party leaders not representing a Quebec riding have won a general election to get the job of Prime Minister: Joe Clark (1979) and Stephen Harper (2006, 2008, 2011). While you can win a general election without much support in Quebec it is a lot easier with it; and if you don't have Quebec you need another base (such as The West).
Is one an 'istaphobe' for considering the electability of a leadership candidate based on their identity? No. Acknowledging reality, or your perception of it, isn't racist, sexist etc. If someone can recognize the potential upside in terms of media attention or voter engagement of having a woman or non-white leader in an election, but rejects even considering any downside, that is simply hypocrisy. And anyone who says they don't recognize the upside is either clueless or lying; more likely the later.
Is it wrong to let such considerations impact your vote in a leadership contest? In principle yes. I'd rather we were at the point where a choice is driven only by the policies, experience and personalities (e.g. perceived trustworthiness) of the candidates – merit – rather than identity. In practice, I think it comes down to the expected impact and how much you want to win. The leader is the spokesperson who has to attract the electorate and sell the party. However, I don't see identity as a major negative factor in Canada today and for many it would be a positive. But if a leader is promoted to the public as good because of his or her identity characteristics that is likely to put many voters off in a general election. Personally I found this aspect of Hilary Clinton's campaign cringy and it didn't work at the end of the day.
What is the 'secret sauce' for electability? No single characteristic is a guarantee of success. Much like Ideology it is a strong combination of the right ingredients with no major weaknesses that will put off voters in a general election. Importantly for someone voting in a leadership contest the right question isn't "How much do I like this candidate?", but rather "How will the majority of Canadians react to this person as our party leader?".
Turning back to the current LPC leadership race, I think that any senior member of the current government has far too much baggage. He or she would need to basically run against much of the track record of the government they were part of (which seems to be what is happening). Before she stuck her foot in her mouth, Christy Clark looked like a serious contender with good 'electability', other than not being from Quebec and weak French. Another option could have been a capable back bencher with government experience but who could avoid being tarred too heavily with the brush of Justin Trudeau's policies. However the commentariat seems to be betting on Mark Carney at the moment. While Carney has more plausible deniability than Chrystia Freeland, I'm doubtful either would bring what the LPC needs into the next general election.
Party Management
This one is boring and, as I result, I suspect often forgotten. But large organizations don't run well without people paying attention to the boring details of actually running the organization. No doubt professional politicians and political insiders understand this. But rarely does anyone talk about this skill set and I suspect most party members during a leadership contest (and average voters in a general election) are more focused on the ideas (Ideology) espoused by and charisma (Electability) of the candidate.
As a result, how good the person is at the job is a distant third consideration at best. Take a moment to consider that. How often have you heard a case being made for a party leader based on his or her experience and demonstrated skills, as opposed to what they want to spend more tax money on or their personality? I’ll wait.
This I'd say is a failure of our political culture.
The candidate for leader need not be inclined to immerse themselves in the details of party management. In fact, one too focused on every small detail would be well advised to get their nose out of the spreadsheets so as to maintain focus on the larger strategic landscape.
But if not a manager by nature, a leader needs to appreciate the importance of all that boring stuff happening in the background. He or she needs to ensure competent and engaged people are installed in the right positions and remain engaged to ensure things are in hand. "What the commander is interested in, the staff are seized of." – if the leader isn't aware of key metrics and asking hard questions occasionally the chances of things slipping increase dramatically.
These tasks include fund raising, managing the party budget, coordinating messaging in advertising, head hunting strong candidates for future elections, and maintaining good relations within the Caucus and with riding associations. No doubt a political insider could list several more such activities without trying. All generally boring, behind the scenes tasks that the average person would never think about if they are done well. But if they aren't done, or are done poorly, it shows eventually.
These skills are critical if your newly minted party leader becomes Prime Minister. Again often done by others, but an effective PM needs to know what to do, what to delegate, the skills needed to get those tasks done, and when to pay attention to them. The PM needs to be more than just relatable and full of good sounding ideas, he or she needs to be able to prioritize effort, effectively guide a government full of often conflicting priorities, and maintain relationships such as within Cabinet and the Caucus.
I don't think anyone can make a serious case for the current government being an example of effective party or government management. It has survived and (generally) performed well during crises (Trump term #1 NAFTA renegotiation and COVID). But a crisis can simplify things when it becomes the sole focus of attention and resources. There have been successes but also a lot of policies that were dropped (electoral reform), bungled (immigration), or backfired (the Online News Act).
I can't say who among those running for LPC leadership have the skills required. Carney's experience makes him a solid contender, as long as he can translate central bank experience to the political landscape. I suspect he can, and he seems to have plenty of current Cabinet members to provide advice. Freeland has been in a series of high-level roles and so presumably has an appreciation of what it takes to make a party and a government function effectively.
Conclusion
There, for your consideration, are my "Three main considerations in casting a vote for a new party leader". Feedback is certainly welcome in the comments. Are there factors or candidate characteristics that should be considered which I have missed?
I'm expecting the upcoming LPC leadership race to be as dull as dishwater. It is currently shaping up to be a very short contest between Carney and Freeland spectated by the other candidates, or perhaps an effective coronation. As of 13 January, a Leger poll found that 27% of committed Liberal voters preferred Carney to be the party’s next leader, compared to 21% for Freeland. However 30% responded "I don’t know".
In the last few weeks I've found that any commentary on this leadership race that is more than three days old invariably contains some claim or prognostication which is no longer valid as the situation has changed. So perhaps one of the other candidates will shake things up and make the race interesting.
I do think the most important question for the party should be one of ideology - what does the LPC want to be going forward? However there is another question not captured in any of my rambling above – what is the purpose of the leader to be selected by 9 March? Philippe J. Fournier pointed out in a recent episode of The Numbers podcast that there are two potential purposes for this contest which result in different outcomes:
Is the LPC electing a leader for the future? Is this leader meant to weather the storm of the next election, rebuild the party after the expected CPC victory, and attempt to regain power in a few years?
Or is the LPC electing a leader to be sacrificed in 2025, following which another contest will be held to select the actual leader for the future?
I guess we will find out soon enough.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts on the subject. I hope you found them useful.