| As soon as the election results were known, a theory began to spread like wildfire: that voters from Eastern Canada had rejected the Conservative Party simply because it was led by a Western Canadian and that this was why the Conservatives lost. I believed since the beginning that this theory was dubious because, among other reasons, as pointed out by Andrew Coyne, our first-past-the-post voting system make the Conservatives seem more popular in the West than they really are and the same thing happens to the Liberals with respect to Ontario. But this theory just won't go away: Nicholas Packwood brings it up again in this post on the Shotgun and user comments talk of "hatred", "racism", "oppression", etc. to describe Eastern Canada's attitude toward Western Canada.
A study published by the CRIC in July 2004 attempted to find to what extent some characteristics of a party leader could influence voters. Thus, we learn that "[10% of respondents] said they would be less likely to vote for a party headed by a [Western Canadian]". By way of comparison, we notice that "30% [of respondents] would be less likely to vote for a party if its leader were Muslim. [...] One in four said they would be less likely to vote for a party if its leader were gay or lesbian, and 22% said they would be less likely to vote for a party headed by a Quebecer." Moreover, "Western Canadians (33%) and especially Albertans (36%) are the most likely to be reticent about backing a party with a leader from Quebec. [...] By comparison, only 16% of Quebecers said they were less likely to vote for a party if a Westerner led it". It is relevant to remind that the only party in recent history to have claimed in an electoral campaign that it was a bad idea to vote for another party because of the regional origin of its leader is the Reform Party in its 1997 campaign: we remember the "no more Québec leaders" ad. The political science professor James Bickerton remarks in his review of Unsteady State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election that "the intensity of media focus on Reform, following its 'no more Quebec leaders' advertisement, and the universal condemnation of all the other parties which followed, actually seemed to shore up Reform support in the electorate." My goal is not play the eternal victim - I leave this role to the Parti Québécois - but simply to show that anti-West sentiments are far from having the magnitude that some believe them to have and that there are many people in the West who are not really in a position to complain about regional prejudices. When Paul Martin attacked Ralph Klein, there were many people who interpreted this as an attack against Alberta, or even against the West as a whole. However, Stephen Harper also attacked Dalton McGuinty, was this an attack against Ontario? During the debates, Harper fired a shot toward the British Columbia NDP for its mismanagement during the 1990s, was this an attack against British Columbia? Jack Layton blasted Gordon Campbell, Ralph Klein, Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest, were these attacks against British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Québec (it's getting mighty crowded) Ezra Levant covered the Martin-Klein incident in a June 21, 2004 column titled Anti-Alberta bigotry. However, in this same column, he points out that "Martin chose to attack only Alberta. He did not criticize Ontario and Quebec, with their burgeoning private hospitals. Ontario and Quebec are run by Liberal governments." And Alberta is run by a Conservative government. Therefore, as could be expected during an electoral campaign, it seems that Paul Martin's attack was motivated more by partisanship than by regional prejudices. In the same way, Stephen Harper attacked Liberal or NDP provincial governments and Jack Layton blasted Liberal or Conservative provincial governments. There was a moment when Harper led the polls. Do we really believe that the Conservative Party lost this lead only because the Ontarians suddenly realized that Harper came from the West? Be serious please, chasing ghosts is not the way to move forward. | Dès que les résultats des élections furent connus, on a vu se propager une théorie: que les électeurs de l'Est canadien avaient rejeté le parti Conservateur simplement parce qu'il était dirigé par un Canadien de l'Ouest et que c'était la cause de la défaite des Conservateurs. Cette théorie m'a semblé douteuse dès le début entre autres parce que, comme l'a noté Andrew Coyne, notre scrutin uninomial à un tour fait paraître les Conservateurs plus populaires qu'ils ne le sont réellement dans l'Ouest et pareillement avec les Libéraux en Ontario. Mais cette théorie a la couenne dure: Nicholas Packwood la réitère dans ce message sur le Shotgun et les commentaires des usagers parlent de "haine", "racisme", "oppression", etc. pour décrire l'attitude de l'Est vis-à-vis de l'Ouest canadien.
Une étude du CRIC publiée en juillet 2004 a tenté de trouver à quel point certaines caractéristiques d'un chef de parti pouvaient influencer le vote des électeurs. Ainsi, on remarque que "[10 % des répondants] ont dit qu’ils seraient moins portés à voter pour un parti dirigé par une personne [de l'Ouest canadien]". À titre de comparaison, on remarque que "30 % [des répondants] seraient moins portés à voter pour un parti dont le chef serait musulman. [...] Un répondant sur quatre a affirmé qu’il serait moins porté à voter pour un parti dont le chef serait gai ou lesbienne, et 22 % ont dit qu’ils seraient moins portés à voter pour un parti dirigé par une personne du Québec." De plus, "[l]es Canadiens de l’Ouest (33 %), surtout les Albertains (36 %) sont les plus portés à se montrer réticents à soutenir un parti dirigé par une personne du Québec. [...] Par comparaison, seulement 16 % des Québécois affirment qu’ils seraient moins portés à voter pour un parti dont le chef proviendrait de l’Ouest". Il est bon de rappeler que le seul parti de l'histoire récente à avoir affirmé en campagne électorale qu'il ne fallait pas voter pour un autre parti en raison de l'origine régionale de son chef est le parti Réformiste dans sa campagne de 1997: on se rappelle de sa publicité "no more Québec leaders." Le professeur de sciences politiques James Bickerton remarque dans sa revue de Unsteady State : Une analyse des élections fédérales canadiennes de 1997 que "l’attention médiatique intense accordée au Parti réformiste, à la suite de sa publicité anti-dirigeants québécois et la condamnation unanime par tous les autres partis qui a suivi, ont plutôt semblé consolider l’appui au Parti réformiste." Mon but n'est pas de jouer à la victime éternelle - je laisse ça au Parti Québécois - mais simplement de montrer que les sentiments anti-Ouest sont loin d'avoir l'ampleur que certains leur attribuent et qu'il y a bien des gens de l'Ouest qui sont mal placés pour se plaindre de préjugés régionaux. Lorsque Paul Martin s'en est pris à Ralph Klein, plusieurs ont interprété cela comme une attaque contre l'Alberta, voire contre l'Ouest au complet. Pourtant Stephen Harper s'en est aussi pris à Dalton McGuinty, était-ce une attaque contre l'Ontario? Durant les débats, Harper a lancé une flèche en direction du NPD de Colombie-Britannique pour sa mauvaise gestion dans les années 1990, était-ce une attaque contre la Colombie-Britannique? Jack Layton, quant à lui, a attaqué Gordon Campbell, Ralph Klein, Dalton McGuinty et Jean Charest, étaient-ce des attaques contre la Colombie-Britannique, l'Alberta, l'Ontario et le Québec (ça commence à faire du monde à la Messe) Ezra Levant a traité de l'incident Martin-Klein dans une chronique du 21 juin 2004 intitulée Anti-Alberta bigotry. Pourtant, dans cette même chronique, il signale que "Martin a choisi d'attaquer seulement l'Alberta. Il n'a pas critiqué l'Ontario et le Québec, avec leurs hôpitaux privés fleurissants. L'Ontario et le Québec sont dirigés par des gouvernements Libéraux." Or l'Alberta est dirigée par un gouvernement Conservateur. Donc, comme on pourrait s'y attendre en campagne électorale, il semble que l'attaque de Paul Martin ait été motivée plus par de la partisanerie que par des préjugés régionaux. De même, Stephen Harper a attaqué des gouvernements provinciaux Libéraux ou NPD alors que Jack Layton a attaqué des gouvernements provinciaux Libéraux ou Conservateurs. Il fut un moment où Harper menait dans les sondages. Est-ce qu'on croit réellement que le parti Conservateur a perdu cette avance seulement parce que les Ontariens se sont soudainement rendus compte que Harper venait de l'Ouest? Un peu de sérieux s'il vous plaît, ce n'est pas en chassant des fantômes qu'on fait avancer les choses. |
I would like to ask you a question about your column of August 20th.
You state that according to a poll, 16% of Quebecers said they were less
likely to vote for a party with a Western leader. Do you really believe
that the people were telling the truth? Could you please let me know
when was the last time that many Quebecers, Anglophone or Francophone,
have voted for any party whose leader was not from Quebec? When given a
choice, Quebecers will vote for a Quebecer and the statistics will prove
that, if you would check it out.
Perhape, the Reform Party made an error in suggesting that it was time
for a non-Quebec leader but would Quebec accept a non-Quebec leader?
Remember a Quebecer has been Prime Minister for most of the last 40
years. Is this a co-incidence? Are Quebecers the only ones capable of
leading this country? Is it because they speak French the best? Or is
it because to win, a party needs Quebec and Ontario votes and neither
seems to want to vote for anyone other than a Quebec leader. So if you
say the regional card does not exist, I cannot agree with you at all.
AMS,
First, I'll point out that I voted for Harper and, if you browse the June 2004 archives of this blog, you will see that I made no secret of my support for Harper. I personally have no philosophical or practical objections against voting for a party led by a Western leader.
But I never said the regional card did not exist in Canada. I simply said it was unsubstantiated to say Stephen Harper lost the election simply because he came from Western Canada. As pointed out in my column, this CRIC survey found that 10% of Canadians would be less likely to vote for a party led by a Western Canadian versus 22% for a party led by a Quebecer. This survey also contains a statistic directly relevant to your argument, namely that "32% [of Quebecers] said they were more likely to vote for a party led by someone from their province." However, it also found that "about two in five Westerners (38%) say they would be more likely to vote for a party led by a person from the West." To the extent that the regional origin of the party leaders played a role in the last elections, it would have been to the advantage of Harper, not Martin. Indeed, if we go back to the 1997 "no more Québec leaders" Reform party ad, I pointed out in my text (in a sentence that was edited out in the printed version) that:
The political science professor James Bickerton remarks in his review of Unsteady State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election that "the intensity of media focus on Reform, following its 'no more Quebec leaders' advertisement, and the universal condemnation of all the other parties which followed, actually seemed to shore up Reform support in the electorate."
You asked when was the last time many Quebecers voted for a party not led by someone from Québec. The answer is of course in 1965 when they supported Lester B. Pearson (and before that Diefenbaker in 1958 and Mackenzie King throughout his political career, etc.) But then, which non-Québec leader in the last 40 years would you have expected Quebecers to vote for? Robert Stanfield? Joe Clark? John Turner? Kim Campbell? Maybe the real problem is simply that political parties have not recently fielded leaders from English-speaking Canada with the skill and stature of a Mackenzie King or Pearson.
The Conservative Party did not lose because its leader came from Western Canada. It lost because it spent more time apologizing for its policies than promoting them, and because it put too much emphasis on telling voters to jump on the Tory bandwagon and too little emphasis on explaining why it would be a good thing if Canada got a Conservative government.
Écrit par: Laurent à août 25, 2004 06:14 PM