The politics of a coronation
Since the abandonment of delegated leadership conventions, political parties have seemingly engaged in other questionable efforts to safeguard the selection of its annointed candidate for party leader
With less than a week remaining, the Liberal Party of Canada will have concluded its contest to crown a new leader, following Justin Trudeau’s resignation. Though to most observers of this leadership race, use of the word “contest” would be rather generous.
Former central banker Mark Carney has long been sought by Liberals as the presumptive favourite to lead their party into the future, well before Trudeau had announced his intentions to step down. As a result, the entire course of this race has given off an impression of being more of a placating exercise, rather than a genuinely democratic one.
For instance, the leadership debates held last week showed hardly any signs of dissent between the candidates. Aside from the nuanced differences in policy positions, it was apparent the other candidates were unwilling to critique Carney as the clear frontrunner, and instead were consigned to embracing the inevitably of his leadership bid.
Both public opinion polling and fundraising numbers have shown to be predictive indicators reaffirming the likelihood of Carney's victory, which may partly explain why most candidates chose to pull their punches during the debates, as a means of ingratiating themselves as possible cabinet options in an eventual Carney government.
But it could also be a function of institutional memory, and the covert threat of party establishment backlash.
Take for example the Liberals last leadership race back in 2013, when Trudeau was similarly seen as the overwhelming favourite, but it was fellow leadership candidate Marc Garneau; an accomplished Canadian by most standards, who had unflinchingly challenged Trudeau’s qualifications during their first debate:
“Leadership is about more than being a motivational speaker.
It’s about making some very, very difficult decisions, often on your own…So please tell us what in your resume qualifies you to be the leader of the country?”
Garneau would publicly follow up this line of attack in a subsequent press conference, saying:
“The leadership of the Liberal party is too important a position to be handed to an untested candidate who is hiding behind a carefully crafted public relations campaign.”
Shortly after these remarks, Garneau stepped down from the race. Despite the declared rationale, the timing was seemingly too convenient to suggest nothing was amiss from the party in this regard, when less favoured candidates than Garneau still remained in the race.
While these types of internal attacks within a leadership race are understandably discouraged, partly because it provides campaign fodder for the opposing parties in a general election, any internal party enforcement against such contentions essentially makes a farce of the democratic process.
And it is from here, where one can begin to question and interpret the actions of political party establishments, as operating in a way to ensure certain leadership races result in their annointed candidate emerging as an unscathed victor.
In order to critically assess the matter, one must first understand the process by which a leader is selected. Currently, every federal party has adopted a one-member, one-vote, ranked ballot system in choosing its leader, thereby allowing direct and full participation of party members.
Prior to this system though, all major political parties utilized a method known as delegated leadership conventions, which consisted of party members electing delegates, who in turn attended a national convention on behalf of members to vote for a leader - usually through multiple rounds of voting until one candidate received a majority.
These conventions made for exciting, and in some cases, unpredictable outcomes. One of the often cited conventions for its dramatic ending was when Brian Mulroney, having never held elected office at the time, beat out the former prime minister, Joe Clark, on the fifth ballot to win the Progressive Conservative leadership in 1983.
The last delegated convention in Canada was under the Liberals in 2006, and perhaps also served as among the most unpredictable, when Stéphane Dion was elected leader over establishment favourites Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. It was a classic example of the grassroot delegates defying establishment preferences with strategic shifting of support between ballots, ultimately rewarding Dion.
Incidentally, it was following this convention that the Liberals abandoned the delegated format in favour of the one-member, one-vote system. Ignatieff easily attained the leadership, following Dion's loss in the general election of 2008 and subsequent resignation as party leader.
It can be argued that moving away from delegated conventions empowers party members more direct involvement in voting, while lessening political backroom deals made by candidates and/or party elites between ballots. Despite the pretense of a greater democratic exercise, the party establishment can still exert considerable influence under the current system, in service of a more stable, and intended coronation for a preferred candidate.
The first way they do this is by having an exorbitant entry fee, designed to limit the number of candidates members can choose from, while also guaranteeing the perceived frontrunner will command the necessary fundraising to meet the tight deadlines for payment.
The current Liberal leadership race has set a record $350,000 entry fee, to which candidate and former House leader Karina Gould acknowledged was “very high,” while also highlighting the obstacles this presented for other potential candidates who refrained from participating.
The previous record high was set at $300,000 by the Conservative Party during the 2022 leadership contest, in which Pierre Poilievre won in sweeping fashion. Again, there were significantly fewer candidates in that race than what was witnessed during the 2017 Conservative leadership race, which had an entry fee of $50,000, and considerably more candidates with no clear favourite. Lessons were most certainly drawn from these contests.
Surprisingly, there are those lesser known candidates that manage to clear the initial barrier of posting the entry fee. When the fee itself has failed to weed out candidates who represent a threat to the party’s reputation or to its leading candidate in some fashion, the establishment can then rely on its powers of disqualification.
Case in point, Chandra Arya and Ruby Dhalla were both candidates that met the requisite fundraising targets for this current Liberal leadership race, yet both ended up being disqualified.
The party's decision on Arya's removal is still shrouded in mystery. Arya had expressed controversial views, such as abolishing the monarchy and dismissing the importance of the French language, but it is not clear if these positions seen as damaging to the Liberal brand were the impetus for his exit.
In the case of Dhalla’s disqualification, the party contends she violated expense rules and other leadership infractions, but the full details of the allegations and her corresponding appeal have not been made public. Dhalla had not been shy about criticizing the Trudeau record, Carney's candidacy, and many prevailing Liberal policies, which meant her presence on a debate stage would have undoubtedly made things uncomfortable for Carney and the rest of the agreeable candidates.
In 2022, the Conservative Party also ousted one of its leadership candidates, Patrick Brown, under allegations of financial wrongdoing. Brown is recognized as a seasoned campaigner and formidable organizer, and his continued presence in the race might have threatened to make it more competitive for Poilievre, who eventually sailed through to the leadership once Brown was disqualified.
Political parties are autonomous creatures, and so in the absence of any independent oversight mechanism in place to check the veracity of the party's findings or conclusions, such decisions to remove disruptive candidates from an intended coronation becomes steeped in suspicion.
To potentially change these somewhat clandestine dynamics, it is worth reviewing Justice Marie-Josée Hogue’s public inquiry report on combating foreign interference, and in particular the recommendations laid out for political parties. It can serve as an instructive document on how political parties can improve transparency and oversight within its leadership processes, such as coordinating with Elections Canada on filing financial returns or notices of leadership contest rules and nominations; making candidates and the party itself subject to specific and expanded sections of the Canada Elections Act during leadership contests; and other suggested improvments.
But with only a few days left in the Liberal leadership race, obviously many of these recommendations will have to wait. Meanwhile, Carney remains, by design, an untested and relatively unknown political quantity beyond his well publicized CV, yet he is on the verge of becoming Canada's 24th prime minister. Carney’s widespread involvement on numerous commercial boards and business associations have compelled calls for proactive disclosures on potential conflicts of interest, which alone should give one pause. And if history has proven anything, a coronation beckons scrutinization.