2007: Year of the election

Politics in Canada gets more interesting all the time. Two elections in as many years have set up an epic rubber match, possibly bringing an end to a century or more of Liberal dominance. But whatever the result, the next election promises to be a remarkable and unusual affair. Should it come, as expected, this spring -- the third in three years, the fifth in a decade -- it will be the centrepiece in a year filled with important elections, each one likely to be closely fought. By year’s end, political junkies will be strung out like so many debauched Warhol groupies.

Begin with how evenly matched the two main parties are, both in terms of parliamentary representation (just 22 seats separate them) and in the polls, where both now patrol the mid-30s range. Moreover, both parties have of late been, in a sense, “reborn” -- the Conservatives, quite literally, out of the merger of the Alliance and Tory parties, the Liberals from last month’s extraordinary leadership convention, where Stephane Dion’s underdog victory effectively decapitated most of the party establishment. Experience in government has cleansed the Conservatives of the “scary” associations of the past; time in opposition has likewise cleansed the Liberals of the stain of corruption.

Put all that together, and what does it mean? It means this will be the most contested, and forward-looking, election in a generation, possibly two. We have had our share of elections in recent history that were forgone conclusions, as in 1997 or 2000, or that were essentially referendums on the government’s record, as in the two most recent elections. 1993 was a little of both.

But this government is too new, either to have established itself as the natural majority or to have outworn its welcome with the public. Likewise the newly invigorated Liberals are something of a blank slate. Deprived of the sense of inevitability that sustained them in power for so many years, they are in search of an identity: if no longer a party of power, what are they? Neither party, therefore, presents such an inviting target that the other can simply campaign against it and leave it at that. It won’t be enough for either party to say what the other did in the past. Each will have to tell the public what it would do in the future.

You really have to go back to at least 1988 to find an election that promises such an open clash of visions. And even 1988 was really about one party’s vision: the Tory promise of free trade versus the Liberal promise of ... not free trade. A better comparision is probably 1968: two new leaders, two very different views of the country. Add to that the qualities of the two leaders themselves -- each possessed of possibly the sharpest mind in his party, each respected for his integrity and his political savvy, each a scrapper and each a bit of a gambler -- and the historic dimensions of this election begin to take shape.

But the federal election, as such, is only part of the story. What makes this a truly remarkable election year is that the federal campaign, if it comes, may well be sandwiched between elections in the two largest provinces. The latest talk out of Quebec City has Jean Charest calling an election on the back of the federal budget, capitalizing on whatever goodies the Tories offer the province in the name of the blessed “fiscal imbalance.” (Don’t get me started.) A federal election would follow later in the spring, with Ontario’s already scheduled in law for an October date.

It is unusual enough for the two provinces to hold elections in the same year: just 11 times since Confederation. For a federal election to coincide with an election in either province is even more unusual: the last such occasion was in 1963. But for all three to hold elections in the same year? That hasn’t happened since 1908. I need hardly add that the stakes are that much higher this time, with the possibility of a third Quebec referendum in the offing -- a factor of which politicians in all three campaigns cannot fail to be mindful.

This time last year Mr. Charest looked to have little hope -- so much so that a campaigning Paul Martin seemed to take his defeat for granted. But much has changed in the interim. With the defeat of the federal Liberals the sponsorship scandal largely ceased to be an issue, while Mr. Harper has furnished Mr. Charest with various shiny baubles -- Unesco, the “nation” resolution, and did I mention the fiscal imbalance? -- with which to woo nationalist voters (at whatever cost to the federation in the long run). And of course, there’s André Boisclair, the federalist secret weapon.

Ontario, too, is very much up for grabs: though the McGuinty Liberals lead in the polls, there is little sense of popular enthusiasm for the government, and much unease in the province’s manufacturing base. As in the other two elections, the campaign will be decisive.

Three huge elections, all in play. Two federal leaders of rare ability. A real clash of visions. All in the shadow of a possible Quebec refendum. This could be the most exciting year in Canadian politics since, well, ever.