Ed. note — This commentary by Nathalie Des Rosiers is one of three appearing Friday that offer a variety of perspectives on the federal election. We also have commentaries from Amira Elghawaby and Tasha Kheiriddin.

In November 2016, Hillary Clinton’s voters stayed home, and Trump was elected. Will the same thing happen in Canada in the 2019 federal election?

Populism has reached Canada, according to an Ipsos poll.

What we don’t know is the breadth and depth of the wave, and whether it will steer voters and politicians in new directions.

Anger is on the rise throughout the world. The disenchanted among us vote for conservative populists even if it works against their own self-interest. They vote for Trump, whose policies privilege the rich and the wealthy, for Brexit, which will cost them jobs, and for Doug Ford, who listens more to developers than to tenants.

COMMENTARY: Why political ideology can’t be ignored, Amira Elghawaby says

Feelings of having been “abandoned” prevail.

Globalization may have reduced poverty in the South, but it has had mixed results in the North: some get very rich, while others lose their jobs. The impact of globalization continues to be felt. Economies must adapt quickly, but the human beings who make up our workforce cannot adjust at the same speed.

The rise in populism can also be traced back to the increasing complexity of problems facing humanity. It is normal to feel overwhelmed when proposed solutions require massive transformation. For example, the response to climate change may require a new way of eating, of working and of moving about. It is not easy to imagine the impact of the necessary transitions.

A populist reflex may be to give up on trying to solve the big issues. Ignoring problems and putting one’s head into the sand is not uncommon.

What is clear is that populism can also easily reinforce latent anti-feminist and anti-immigration feelings, and fears of any “other.”

COMMENTARY: Justin Trudeau sounds like he’s running against Stephen Harper, Tasha Kheiriddin says

For all politicians, this is worrisome — and not just for the progressive parties. Canada needs immigration; equality and equity for women and all members of society is good for any economy, and for the commonweal. Feeding into negative attitudes against equality or against newcomers will not help our society. It is counterproductive to allow misogyny or hate to grow. Maxime Bernier is learning this quickly.

Politicians have a choice in responding to anti-elite sentiment: they can, like Bernier, play to it; or they can try to contain it, as Andrew Scheer is attempting to do; or they can engage and channel it for positive change.

Conservative populist campaigning often taps into nostalgic messaging — for example, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” — that evokes a fictional golden age of pre-globalization policies. Although the 1950s were good to some people in our society, they were not good for everyone. This nostalgia, about days when women stayed at home and immigration was white, is also very damaging.

Progressive parties try to channel the feelings of abandonment by developing a more ambitious agenda of social reform. This is what the Democrats are doing in the States. Will it work? Will we see the same tendency in Canada?

At this stage, our political parties seem to keep to their traditional strategies and go after their traditional voters, aiming to displace one another in some segment of the population. We have not seen the type of ambitious new deal that some Democrats are putting forward down South.

Politics has not been transformed yet. This election may bring surprises, but this is a very short window for major transformative tactics.

The dangers of an increasing populist trend in the Canadian population are very real; it is not only the development of a regressive anti-equality agenda, but also voter apathy. Disenchanted voters and people who have lost faith in electoral politics may just stay home.

This may have a significant impact on the election, particularly for the Liberals.

It is not unreasonable for Canadians to want to vote Liberal again in 2019.

When Justin Trudeau brought his sunny ways to Ottawa four years ago, he raised many people’s expectations. He promised much that he was unable to deliver, such as on electoral reform, among other things. But he did put a price on carbon, he lifted many children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit, and he reinvigorated Canada’s image in the world.

So moderate Canadians could decide to give the Liberals a chance to complete what they started, and deliver on pharmacare, housing, innovation, and women’s equality. This is often the Canadian way: granting the second mandate necessary to complete the work.

It would not be unreasonable for moderates to give Trudeau a second mandate, particularly since the alternatives are not very appealing. The PCs continue to struggle to articulate their environmental plans and their foreign policy vision. The NDP is struggling to find enough candidates to run, and the Greens, although on the rise, have not reassured Canadians that its platform is about more than just the protection of the environment.

But are there enough moderate Canadians? And, more importantly, will they vote?

One thing to watch during this campaign is the capacity of the different parties to motivate their voters and to create a sense of excitement about politics. Who votes and who stays home — in some ridings in particular — will determine the outcome. We will have to watch for advance voting strategies and outreach toward youth and other more whimsical voters.

I will also be watching for the role and place of women candidates in the positioning of the parties: are they given prominent places during the campaign?  Finally, I will also be watching whether the style remains dominated by the leaders, or do they engage and show off their team. There will be lots of things to observe and discuss in the weeks ahead.

Nathalie Des Rosiers is principal of Massey College at the University of Toronto. She was Liberal MPP for Ottawa-Vanier in the Ontario Legislature from 2016 to 2019.

Source: Read Full Article