Stories

The New Nature of Democracy in Alberta

Trevor Shelley
July 20, 2015
It is hard to overstate the political upheaval that occurred in Alberta’s May 5 election. The NDP soared from four seats to a 54-seat majority. Wildrose grew from five seats to a 22-seat Official Opposition. And the PCs plummeted from 70 seats to 10. A 44-year-dynasty ended, certainly, but according to Trevor Shelley, so did a 110-year-old tradition of dynastic politics. Its likely successor, writes Shelley, is a two-party state, sharply defined as progressive vs conservative, in accord with Tocqueville’s democratic ideal, the rule in most Canadian provinces, and the apparent trend in Ottawa.
Stories

The New Nature of Democracy in Alberta

Trevor Shelley
July 20, 2015
It is hard to overstate the political upheaval that occurred in Alberta’s May 5 election. The NDP soared from four seats to a 54-seat majority. Wildrose grew from five seats to a 22-seat Official Opposition. And the PCs plummeted from 70 seats to 10. A 44-year-dynasty ended, certainly, but according to Trevor Shelley, so did a 110-year-old tradition of dynastic politics. Its likely successor, writes Shelley, is a two-party state, sharply defined as progressive vs conservative, in accord with Tocqueville’s democratic ideal, the rule in most Canadian provinces, and the apparent trend in Ottawa.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Shelley

In a May 21 National Post op-ed titled “Death of a Dynasty,” newly-elected Wildrose MLA Derek Fildebrandt suggested that “we may see the [Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta] unofficially disintegrate.” To be sure, disintegration is one possible fate for the PCs. Equally conceivable is some form of merger with the Wildrose Party. A third possibility, though seemingly remote, is a PC rebound. However things unfold, a plausible alternative to Fildebrandt’s thesis is that Albertans have not only witnessed the death of a dynasty, but also the possible end of more than a century of dynastic politics.

In the 110 years since the birth of the province in 1905, Alberta has been governed by just four parties. The founding Liberal dynasty lasted 16 years, followed by the 14-year reign of the United Farmers. The subsequent Social Credit and Progressive Conservative dynasties lasted 35 and 44 years, respectively. In the technical language of political science, Alberta fit the description of a polity with a “dominant one-party system.”

This conclusion was famously disputed by Canadian political scientist C.B. MacPherson in his 1953 book Democracy in Alberta: The Theory and Practice of a Quasi-Party System. MacPherson argued that Alberta’s democratic system was an unprecedented species unto itself, which he called a “quasi-party” system. In his rather condescending and Marxist-influenced view, Alberta’s political culture was excessively homogenous and suffered from a “quasi-colonial” mentality.

Were he still around today MacPherson might find the election of an NDP government as positive evidence of a more diverse, less insular political system. Maybe so, but surely the more interesting and salient possibility is the sudden and dramatic emergence of a two-party system. To me, this is evidence of Alberta politics undergoing a significant developmental change, from dynasticism to a more natural state of democracy.

To invoke nature is to go beyond an ideological understanding of politics and the party system. MacPherson, like many of his contemporaries, analyzed politics through the Marxist lens of class division. As he wrote in Democracy in Alberta: “The party system characteristically performs a function that is indispensable for democracy within a mature capitalist economy: it moderates and contains the opposition of class interests.”

Materialistic arguments like MacPherson’s assume individuals and their political beliefs and actions are determined by their environment, in the broadest sense. They undervalue the individual’s ability to decide for themselves what is just, true, and good, in any political, economic or social context. That bias blinded MacPherson to the fact that Alberta was (and to a great extent still is) an exceptionally class-free society, certainly compared to his home province of Ontario. Alberta’s voters consistently supported populist parties that championed egalitarianism, and decisively dismissed them from office whenever the party was perceived to be too comfortably close to the elites. In this sense, the rejection of the Tories and the ascendance of the NDP and Wildrose parties was perfectly consistent with Alberta’s democratic history and tradition.

Anyone considering democracy in all its facets and forms is best served by turning to the great French political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville. In his magisterial work, Democracy in America (analogously titled, but predating Macpherson’s work by over 200 years), Tocqueville has a great deal to say about parties. Rather than focusing on class interests, Tocqueville’s analysis of democratic parties points to a timeless truth about the nature of parties. In his view they are based upon “two opinions,” which are “as old as the world” and are found “over and over in different forms and reclothed with diverse names in all free societies.”

One opinion invariably seeks “to restrict popular power,” while the other wants “to extend it indefinitely.” These opinions, Tocqueville argues, reflect “immaterial interests of the first order, such as love of equality and of independence.” These immaterial interests – as opposed to the narrower material interests of classes – are arguably resurfacing in the Alberta political arena in the form of the two new dominant parties, with their opposing ideas about equality and liberty, that have emerged in the wake of the recent dynastic decline.

Among the cathartic effects of the political upheaval of 2015 is the end of the unnatural marriage of progressivism and conservatism. The confusion and blending of Tocqueville’s eternally competing opinions has been cleared. Assuming the right unites in some form, Albertans’ political choices will henceforth be starkly contrasted between a party of progressivism and a party of conservatism. There was a kind of genius in the PCs’ ability to accommodate these fundamentally conflicting opinions within a single party and government for so long. Egalitarianism was in large part the glue that held them together, but when too many Albertans – on the right and left – came to see the Tories as an oligarchic party of “corruption and entitlement”, the marriage collapsed.

For most of Canada’s history it has been the norm to find multi-party brokerage politics at the federal level, with two main centrist parties trading power while more ideological third and fourth parties remain on the sidelines. However, two-party systems have dominated in most provinces and the last decade has seen the old PC and Liberal brokerage parties in Ottawa eclipsed by the more ideologically-defined Conservative and NDP parties. If the results of this fall’s federal election confirm this trend, and the right unites in Alberta to compete against the NDP provincially, history may record that it took almost 150 years, but Tocqueville’s understanding of democracy finally took hold in all of Canada.

~

Trevor Shelley recently returned to his native Alberta after completing his PhD in political theory at Louisiana State University, where his studies culminated in a dissertation titled, “Liberalism and Globalization: An Essay on Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and Pierre Manent.” 

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Housing Market Isn’t Racist. Blame Your Parents Instead

Diversity may be our strength. But it is now alarmingly commonplace in Canada to blame any perceived diversity in outcomes between racial groups on vaguely-defined “systemic racism” or “white supremacy”. Case in point: the Federal Housing Advocate’s allegations of rampant racism in Canada’s housing market, and the need to address it with outlandishly disruptive policies. Delving deep into Statistics Canada’s ample supply of race-based data, Peter Shawn Taylor considers the evidence for racism in Canadian housing, education, income and poverty statistics, and finds a more convincing explanation much closer to home.

Young Offenders: Meet the Angry Socialists Poisoning Our Politics

Social media is widely blamed for poisoning the public conversation on a range of topics – especially politics and contentious social questions. But there’s a possibly even more dangerous force growing on the internet: an online community of YouTubers and livestreamers spouting far-left dogma, praising political violence and denigrating their opponents as evil, far-right fascists. Using fallacious arguments, psychological manipulation and overheated rhetoric, they seek to radicalize young people and convert them to their cause. Millions are tuning in, and mainstream “progressive” politicians are jumping on their bandwagons. Noah Jarvis profiles three of these socialist crusaders and explains why they are such a threat.

The Worrisome Wave of Politicized Prosecutions

Shaping criminal charges, bail decisions or prison sentences around an accused person’s political or religious beliefs is utterly odious – a hallmark of tinpot tyrannies and totalitarian hellholes. Such practices have no place in any constitutional nation, let alone a mature democracy that presents itself as a model to the world. But that is increasingly the situation in Canada, writes Gwyn Morgan. Comparing the treatment of protesters accused of minor infractions to those of incorrigible criminals who maim and kill, Morgan finds a yawning mismatch that suggests political motivations are increasingly a factor in today’s criminal justice system.

More from this author

The sum of all Tocqueville’s fears

The French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville expressed great hope and admiration for the United States in his seminal 1835 study Democracy in America. In many ways the country went on to succeed beyond his wildest dreams as both a model for democracy and its greatest defender. But Tocqueville had a nightmare vision of America too, populated by statists and demagogues, competing for the votes of ignorant, irresponsible citizens. In the 2016 election campaign, writes Trevor Shelley, Tocqueville’s worst fears are being realized.

You Gotta Have Heart: A Guide for Conservatives

Another too-close-to-call election looms. But one poll remains consistent: most Canadians believe conservatives care less for the poor and downtrodden than do progressives. Trevor Shelley reviews Arthur C. Brooks’ The Conservative Heart and shows how conservative principles are responsible for curtailing global poverty and increasing general human happiness.

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.