A commentary by the Jarislowsky Chair in Trust and Political Leadership at Vancouver Island University.
The provincial election will officially begin on Saturday, but we have already seen significant failures of democratic leadership.
Good leaders are both ethical and effective. They persuade people to make change and achieve shared goals or objectives.
Publicly spirited leaders aim to make changes that they believe will benefit the public in some way. Democratic leaders persuade — they give reasons and justifications for their policy aims and objectives, and they work collaboratively with others to integrate their own plans with those they seek to lead.
When democratic leaders seek to persuade, they should do so without simplifying complexities or misleading people with inaccurate information or lies.
It should go without saying that leaders should lead public opinion rather than obsequiously following it. Sometimes leaders must defend positions that are not (yet) popular or well understood.
Ultimately, that is what “leadership” means.
The current crop of leaders in ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ is failing these tests of democratic leadership.
When BC United Leader Kevin Falcon ended his party’s election campaign in late August, he surprised everyone — his candidates, volunteers and loyal supporters of the party.
The day before the announcement — a Tuesday — Falcon called the ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Conservatives a “conspiracy party.” The next day he told his candidates and supporters that they should vote for the Conservatives to defeat the NDP.
He did not explain why he thought the Conservatives were too weird and extreme on Tuesday but not on Wednesday.
He acted unilaterally. He did not deliberate with his candidates and party members to identify the best — or most acceptable — option for the party.
And he did not stand on his principles, he dropped out instead. Principled leaders defend their positions even when they know they are going to lose an election.
In doing so they give voters options, and they position themselves to win in the future.
Falcon’s unilateral decision has created a hole in the centre-right of the political spectrum in ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ — a hole that will be difficult to fill in future elections, leaving many voters without an acceptable place to put their vote.
ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Conservative Leader John Rustad has also failed to meet the demands of democratic leadership. Following federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, Rustad has been using the “Axe the Tax” slogan in his campaign to get rid of carbon pricing.
Many Canadians are struggling economically. Housing prices have skyrocketed, and a couple of years ago inflation reached highs that had not been seen since the early 1980s.
But Rustad’s “Axe the Tax” campaign is at best simplistic and at worst misleading.
Politics is a complicated business. Things are rarely simple. Leaders who offer voters simplistic slogans while making false promises are engaged in manipulation — and manipulation is always undemocratic.
Rustad recently said: “The carbon tax is an economic disaster and an environmental failure. It’s a tax that drives up costs on everything from groceries to gas, hitting families and businesses hard while doing absolutely nothing to lower emissions.”
But axing the tax will not solve the economic woes of voters. Recent inflation has more to do with the economic shocks of the pandemic, and the costs of the tax on individuals pale compared to increases in housing prices, which also have little or nothing to do with the carbon tax.
Furthermore, research shows that carbon pricing does, in fact, help lower emissions. Rustad is replacing reason-giving with sloganeering. He might win an election by doing so, but he won’t improve our lives.
This brings us to NDP Leader David Eby’s recent promise to end ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s “consumer carbon tax” if Ottawa drops the requirement for provinces to have one.
Unlike Rustad, Eby has defended the carbon tax in the recent past because it has helped reduce emissions. But instead of defending the tax with reasons and justifications that people might plausibly accept, Eby has opted to undermine the credibility and viability of a policy that he knows to be effective.
Eby is following instead of leading.
ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Green Leader Sonia Furstenau has dealt with the issue in greater complexity but she has called Eby’s position a “flip flop.”
Political leaders should stop using this cliché. The problem is not that Eby has changed his position. There is nothing wrong with changing one’s position when there are good reasons to do so. That is what we want our leaders to do.
The problem, in this case, is that Eby has changed his position to appease voters who have been misinformed by other leaders about the costs and effectiveness of carbon pricing. That is not good democratic leadership.
It is not leadership at all. We deserve leaders who stand on principle and lead without misinforming or simplifying complex issues. That is hard to do, to be sure.
But that is what’s needed if we are going to make good decisions about how to live well together, even when we disagree.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
