Special Edition: History suggests Liberals may be better served by Trudeau stepping down now

When looking back at Canadian electoral history, Liberals must ask themselves what is the value of keeping a leader who's best-before-date has since expired, only to tread down previously failed paths

Approaching the one year anniversary of launching The Federalist Review, an early special edition has been published to mark the occasion. Thank you all for your continued support.

For the first time since becoming leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in 2013, Justin Trudeau is facing serious political troubles within his own party.

In advance of the Liberal caucus retreat last week in London, Ontario there were several media reports citing anonymous Liberal MPs upset with the direction of their party and with the Prime Minister. This growing frustration has been attributable to the party's slumping poll numbers, which are seemingly becoming entrenched.

Take for instance the latest survey from Abacus Data, which now places the Conservatives ahead at 41 per cent support versus 26 for the Liberals. Even more alarming for Liberals with these numbers is that Trudeau has firmly become less popular than the party itself, illustrating that he is no longer the unquestioned asset to his party he once represented.

This begs the question, why would the Liberal Party be content with the status-quo, when its increasingly clear no amount of policy announcements from Trudeau will alter the public’s perceptions of him or his government at this juncture? On the contrary, things will likely continue to get worse economically, and in turn, politically.

As a possible response, some may suggest there is no obvious successor to Trudeau waiting in the wings compelling him to leave, or, another thought is that many of those who were elected on his coat-tails feel a certain level of indebtedness to him, especially as the party had long ago reshaped itself to reflect his personal brand.

Regardless of the reasons, when examining Canada's historical record of previous federal election outcomes for long-tenured governments in the modern era, it points to an instructive strategy, one that suggests in order to salvage any possibility of re-election for this Liberal government, now may be the time for Trudeau to exit stage.

When a leader has been in power for as many years as Trudeau, and is inevitably confronted with an overwhelming voter sentiment for change, the party can either choose to make a leadership change ahead of the next election to freshen its prospects for survival, or take its chances convincing the public to give the incumbent yet another opportunity. The latter option has never been shown to be a favourable outcome for an aging government. Voter fatigue is unshakeable.

A more recent example of this phenomenon was demonstrated by Stephen Harper's Conservatives near decade in power (2006-2015), facing down an electorate that had grown weary of his strong-armed and dour approach to governance, eventually opting for the “sunnier” alternative with Trudeau in 2015.

While it can be argued that Harper earned the right to go down with his ship, and may have even preserved more seats than any possible successor at that point, defeat was nonetheless unavoidable. Similarly, Trudeau and his party may feel that he has earned the right to run in the next election, but as Harper showed, it will simply not translate into electoral success, especially if it is bereft of any new ideas or compelling rationale for a rarified fourth term.

History has also shown that swapping out an unpopular leader at the eleventh hour does not persuade the public in meeting its desire for change. Take the cases of John Turner replacing Pierre Elliott Trudeau (1968-1984), and Kim Campbell succeeding Brian Mulroney (1984-1993), both of which resulted in massive electoral losses.

Though Turner and Campbell were initially viewed with positive impressions upon taking the helm, ultimately their transitions to leader occurred very late into the mandate, denying them the opportunity to showcase their own record of governance, and thereby being positioned as bag-holders in having to defend their predecessors legacies.

And so it holds, if Trudeau hangs on for as long as possible waiting for the polls to turn in his favour, before conceding to his fate and deciding to resign late into his mandate, it will also result in political catastrophe for the party, irrespective of who takes the reins. This approach would also be inconsiderate of the many months required to execute a proper leadership contest, particularly when there is no obvious heir apparent, which brings us to the historical example worth following in terms of timing.

Jean Chretien (1993-2003) was barely halfway into his third term as Prime Minister when internal party strife was pushing him to retire (mostly deriving from Paul Martin’s own ambition and inner circle), as well as the political heat eminating from the Sponsorship Scandal - all of which forced Chretien’s hand to eventually step down, as a means of preventing any further party-fracturing and salvaging his legacy.

Martin easily won the Liberal leadership and was sworn in as Prime Minister on November 2003, leaving him just under a year left in the mandate. While Martin was challenged by a newly formed and united Conservative Party under Harper, along with having initiated the Gomery Commission to look into the Sponsorship Scandal, Martin was still re-elected in 2004, albeit a minority, but in effect prolonging the Liberal reign.

Facing a buoyed and united Conservative Party under current leader Pierre Poilievre, Trudeau would only be helping his party by announcing his resignation as Chretien had, leaving enough runway for a new leader to attempt to steer a different course. After all, Poilievre has crafted his entire messaging on the incompetence and failings of Trudeau, and so stepping away now would severely undercut Poilievre’s narrative, giving Liberals much needed room to pivot.

Liberals can even look to the historical precedents set by their provincial cousins in Ontario, as Kathleen Wynne had been re-elected as Premier with a majority, after having governed for over a year, following the resignation of an increasingly unpopular Dalton McGuinty (2003-2013), who had become embroiled in several political controversies. Interestingly enough, operatives from Martin's election campaign in 2004 worked on Wynne's successful re-election bid in 2014.

The historical lessons to be drawn from here is that if a tired, multiple-term governing party is truly invested in electoral renewal, then having its leader step down with enough time to give someone else a meaningful chance at governing increases the odds on a re-election bid for that party. While no government can last forever, it can still be extended under certain conditions, if the strategy and timing is right. And time is running out for Trudeau to appropriately step down, if the Liberals have any hope of staving off the eventuality of a Poilievre Conservative government.