16 Culture & Politics Character as Politics ANADIANS WENT TO THE POLLS on January 23 to choose a national government for the second time . It marked the end of a long, cold campaign few wanted; like the visit of the ho arrives at Thanksgiving and stays for Christmas, New Year's, and Epiphany, this election seemed to go on forever. When the Liberal government had fallen on November 28, many thought the campaign would be shallow, nasty, unnecessary, and inconsequential. A con- tented country would reelect the Liberals, who had been in power for more than twelve years, and things would remain the same. As it turned out, the election was substantive, surprising, urgent, and decisive. A contented country would elect the Conservatives, who had been out of power for twelve years—and things would remain the same. Indeed, what was extraordinary about the election of 2006 wasn’t just the result, which brought a new government to power in one of the world’s largest, richest, most diverse, and most complex countries. It is how the election gave a people what they seemed to want. A new regime, a new prime minister, a realignment of the opposition parties, a shift in power to the West—all reflected a desire for a change in Canada. But how much change? So shaded and nuanced was the outcome that it had the appearance of hard-won, carefully ci is the hallmark of the Canadian character. What makes a Canadian? For part of the answer, consider the country’s political experience. Although there have been as many as five parties sitting in Parlia- ment at one time, only the Liberals and the Conservatives have ever held office. In fact, the Liberals have been in power for much of the country’s 139 years, which is why they see themselves as its ” When they have faltered, the Conservatives have taken over. The other parties—the leftist New Democrats and the secessionist Bloc Québécois—have never been seen as governments-in-waiting. Fundamentally, Canadians like their governments to be competent, conciliatory, progressive, and centrist. They can tilt left or right, but only marginally and carefully. If this is Canada’s polities, itis its personality. In temperament, Canadians are pragmatic, resourceful, tolerant, accommodating, phlegmatic, and insouciant. Having faced the perennial challenges of climate and geography, they are not easily fazed or frightened. They are moderate in most things, particularly their politics. They do not like unpredictability, which is why they latural Governing Party.” WORLD LITERATURE TODAY» MAY-JUNE 2006 ted compromise. And compromise tend to lect majority governments (there were only nine ‘months of minority government between 1974 and 2003) ‘Actually, they don’t like anything but managed change. ‘Canadians are comfortably conservative, which isn’t to say reactionary or regressive. Suspicious of big, ideas, their instinet is continuity and stability You can see some of this impulse in the recent lection, The electoral system is an imprecise instru- ment of public will, but this time it gave Canadians a much-desired change of government without a change of direction. Call it liberalism without Liberals. Or Con servatives without conservatism. Wonder of wonders, when the votes were counted, that is what they got. The lection produced a government that talks change while promising to be as measured and cautious as Canadians themselves. The change is likely to be more style than substance, and for Canadians enjoying, the strongest ‘economy in a generation, that's fine Itis probably true that Canadians rejected the Liber= als more than they embraced the Conservatives. When the campaign began, the polls suggested the Liberalstreed Conte cd would win a fifth consecutive mandate, which has only happened twice before in Canada. Canacl hat the Conservatives, many of whom opp marriage and abortion and champion smaller 9 ment and lower taxes, are too conservative for Canad: At the same time, they believed that the Liberals were tired government, stained by a damaging party scandal n Québec, led By the earnest if ineffectual Paul Martin, who was a more successful finance minister for nine years than he was a prime minister for two years. If the Conservatives could offer a clean, comforting alterna: ive, Canadians would give them a chance Which is what happened. Stephen Harper, the youthful, dour economist from Alberta, ran a disciplined ‘campaign announcing policy after policy. He inoculated himself against charges of “a hidden social agenda” by embracing such populist ideas as cutting the national sales tax and of fe through direct cash payments to parents rather than another men program, In their platforms, however, there was little difference between the Conservative and the Liberals That is how the Conservatives wanted it; they preferred gage. Trying to distinguish betwoen them, wrote author Peter C. Newman, was like “watching. synchronized Newly coiffed and newly coined, the aloof Mr Harper managed t nself more appealing, He adopted a new style and a new message. It worked. Ten days before the election, polls showed the Conserva tives were poised to win a majority government, But Canadians recoiled! from giving them that large a man date, which would have allowed them to govern with int for as long as five years. This skepticism was ticularly acute in the vote \lustrial heartland of Ontario and Quebec where most of the country’s 33 mil withheld eno ion people live, The h support to limit ne Conservatives to a minority, which makes them seek allies and make deals and will probably force another Their the Liberals won in the is loss than the 13 00518 Culture & Politics ‘lection, The message from the country to the Conserva- tives: You're in power but you're on probation. In electing the Conservatives, Canadians did a few other thoroughly pragmatic things in a country divided by rogion and language. First, they gave the new govern- ‘ment some ground in the province of Québec, where the separatist movement is gaining popularity again. They ‘may have only 10 of 75 seats, but itis a breakthrough for a party that had rione at all before the election. Had the Conservatives taken power in Ottawa with no seats in Québec, the secessionists would have trumpeted the failure of federalism. Second, Canadians elected the first pprime minister from western Canada since Joe Clark held the office in 1979. This is also critical in a country that has been governed for four decades by prime minis- In electing representatives from Québec, in choosing a prime vatives had in the same role in the last Parliament. If Canadians put the Conservatives on probation, they sent the Liberals to purgatory. ‘There, their purpose is to reflec, renew, and rebuild, which is what parties are supposed to do out of power. But remember, Canadians chose to discipline the Liber- als, not destroy them. If things go sour, they can sum- _mon them from exile to resume their rightful place in the seat of government. In other words, they're on standby. Call this Canadian prudence, ike having an extra pair of overshoes. In constructing Canada’s thirty-ninth Parliament, Canadians also acted in other ways to strengthen their fragile union. For example, they gave the Bloc Québé- cois (which runs candidates only in Québec to represent ters of both parties who have minister from the West, Canadians Québec’s interests in Ottawa) ‘come from Québec. In choos- ing the Conservatives, led by a westemer, Canada is grow: ing up. It is acknowledging that it is time for a leader who isn't from Québec, ree- cognizing the shift in power from the old industrial East (which is losing manufacturing jobs) to the resource-rich West, which is selling minerals and cil to all comers. “The West wants in!” is the demand of a region that, has long complained of being ignored in Confederation, thas a greater resonance these days, as the oil wealth of Alberta generates staggering budgetary surpluses and fuels demands for more powers for the province, in what Is already the most decentralized country in the world, In electing representatives from Québec, in choosing a prime minister from the West, Canadians were acting strategically. They were doing what they had to do to keep Canada whole, This instinct for finding the balance in a country of two founding peoples and languages in the shadow of the American colossus is how they have kept things together since independence from Great Brit- ain in 1867, against such great odds. The election also showed an enduring pragmatism, Instead of sweeping the Liberals away, as they had in the elections of 1958 and 1984, voters simply pushed them aside, In relegating them to official opposition in Parlia- ment, they gave them 103 seats, more than the Conser- [WORLD UTERATURE TODAY * MAY-JUNE 2006 were acting strategically. They were doing what they had to do to keep Canada whole. fewer seats. They also gave the New Democratic Party more seats. They strength- ened federalism in Quebec and social democracy in the rest of Canada, a counter: ‘weight to any prospective Conservative drift to the right. Let us review, then. Canadians wanted to change governments, and they did. They wanted the govern- ‘ment to have seas in Québec, and it does. They wanted 1 robust opposition, and it is. They wanted Stephen Harper in velvet chains and Paul Martin in gentee! etie- ment, which is the case. They wanted a revived social democratic party, and got it. They wanted a diminished sovereigntist party, and they got that, too. Astonishingly, they threw up the electoral cards and managed to make ‘hem land just where they wanted—alln an election that could have been a disaster forthe country. For Canada, ital in character. Carleton University ‘Anoatw Cones is a syndicated columnist and professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University {in Ottawa, Canada, His latest book is While Canad Slept How We Lost Our Place i the World which was a finalist for the Governor General's Literary Award for Non-Fiction,