Voters in parliamentary democracies tend to move on from former prime ministers quite quickly. Granted, there are certain standouts, like Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Carleton’s former chancellor Lester B. Pearson. Outside of the Ottawa bubble, though, you would be hard-pressed to find Canadians talking in-depth about Joe Clark in 2019.
The rise of Trudeaumania in the 1970s is a case study for leaders leaving long-lasting legacies in Canada. Pierre Trudeau’s vision of a “just society” through the management of regional tensions and progressive social policy is very similar to the current government’s priorities. In both cases, the Liberal Party centered its charismatic leader and built its brand around an individual.
Today, Justin Trudeau’s brand of “sunny ways” is cracking at the seams. Although his Liberal Party won a second term in the recent federal election, they were reduced to a minority government. Andrew Scheer, the regressive leader of a supposedly “big-tent” Conservative Party, edged out Mr. Trudeau in vote totals.
Mr. Trudeau’s international image remains strong, at least when comparing it to the Harper-led “dark days.” Proclaiming that “Canada is back” after his 2015 victory, many trusted the prime minister to restore our credibility on the world stage. Since his disastrous trip to India in 2017, however, the carefully-curated image of Mr. Trudeau as a global leader has taken hit after hit.
Mr. Trudeau wearing blackface on multiple occasions seems to have been quickly forgotten by most of the Canadian public. Some Canadians may not acknowledge the historically racist roots of this action, but the citizens of other countries have. In the United States, leaders have faced controversy en masse this past year for dressing in racist blackface. Situations like this do not bode well for the Trudeau image internationally.
Many on the right-wing of the political spectrum directly tie their dislike of the Liberal Party to the Trudeau brand. What was once an asset that swung the Liberals from third place to a majority government in 2015 has become often detrimental. Mr. Trudeau’s personal unpopularity in the Prairies was a core reason that his party won zero seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Cue Chrystia Freeland. Our former foreign affairs minister now sits distinctly at the cabinet table as Mr. Trudeau’s second-in-command, our deputy prime minister. Many have commented on her unique portfolio and speculated as to what it poses for the future of the Liberal Party. Her management of relations with both Donald Trump and resistant provincial governments automatically guarantees that she will be a crucial figure in the next parliament.
So now we must ask ourselves: why did Mr. Trudeau feel the need to shift Ms. Freeland out of her position in foreign affairs at all?
Many in Liberal circles argue it was to leverage her status as the most popular cabinet minister and her achievements in negotiations. Others have told me it was a way to actually reduce her power. Politicos argue that in the past, many prime ministers appointed deputies to prevent them from becoming challengers later on. Pierre Trudeau wrote in his 1993 memoir that the first deputy prime minister, Allan MacEachen, “was the kind of man I respected, because he had no ulterior motives.”
Is Ms. Freeland really just a loyal deputy to Mr. Trudeau? Or does her elevation represent something more substantial happening within the Liberal Party?
I believe that Ms. Freeland becoming the first deputy prime minister since 2006 represents the impending post-Trudeau future of Canadian politics.
There will come a time when Mr. Trudeau will no longer serve as our prime minister. There will come a time when Mr. Trudeau will no longer serve as Liberal Leader. The party is smart to highlight the talent of the cabinet and the caucus. This is not just to build a stronger team in general, but also to signify that the party recognizes it is more than just Team Trudeau.
I am not arguing that Chrystia Freeland should be our next prime minister. We do need to assess, however, what her rise implies for the future of Canadian politics.
It shows that the Liberal Party, although still dominated by Mr. Trudeau’s personality, is aware of its uncertain future. It is common knowledge that the Liberal election machine is a beast to overcome. The party governed for 70 years in the last century–the most of any party in a western democracy. Today, it is already taking steps to mitigate future electoral damage.
Ms. Freeland’s new power reminds the prime minister to stay at the top of his game. He is an omnipresent figure, but at the end of the day, we live in a nation of party democracy. As Mr. Trudeau becomes more of a hindrance to their continued electoral success, the Liberals will not hesitate to see him out the door.
A post-Trudeau future is in sight, no matter how you perceive him. And it’s coming sooner than you think.
Feature image from file.
