On brokerage

Aaron Wherry points out what's indeed a highly useful take on how Canadian political have traditionally operated. But it's worth both clarifying one of the main observations, and questioning to what extent the theory is still accurate at the moment.

Here's the passage from Dynasties and Interludes cited by Wherry:

Canadian political parties have traditionally been brokerage parties. Lacking stable support in the electorate, and avoiding clear ideological differentiation from their competitors, political parties approach each election anew, hoping to put together a coalition of support across the entire electorate. Brokerage parties do not seek to appeal in election campaigns on the basis of long-standing principles, or on a commitment to fundamental projects to restructure the economy or society, even if they have these. They are not bound by positions or actions they have taken in the past. Electoral platforms are typically put together from a short-term point of view, offering a mixture of assurances of general competence to deal with the major problems of the day, commitments to prosperity and social security, specific promises designed for instant appeal, and an assertion that only they can provide creative leadership.

Now, the first point worth noting is the difference between what happens "in election campaigns" time frame, and what happens the rest of the time.

And in some ways, the difference between brokerage parties and principled ones is even more important outside of election campaigns. After all, a party without consistent, independent causes will inevitably be limited by the desire not to alienate possible future members of its coalition, while facing relatively little internal pressure to take strong positions on the issues that come up when power isn't immediately at stake.

In contrast, a party with fairly strong and consistent views will have strong incentives to remain more active and vocal between elections. The party's activist members concerned with affecting the results of issues on an ongoing basis will represent a greater proportion of the party, and the perceived costs of some disagreement in less friendly quarters may be more palatable to a party whose strategy relies more on long-term branding and base development than one-off persuasion of swing voters within a campaign.

Not surprisingly, the difference between those two types of parties can be readily seen in the respective actions of the Libs and NDP in opposition to the Harper Cons.

I've criticized the Libs on many occasions for seeming to prefer to allow the Cons to get away with bad policy for the sake of improving their own electoral prospects, and still see that as a generally destructive mindset - but it makes a lot more sense if one figures the Libs haven't moved past the traditional brokerage model. Meanwhile, the NDP has taken much stronger stands at almost every turn, pushing the boundaries of debate on its core issues and fighting back against negative policies rather than standing idly by and waiting for the Cons to self-destruct.

But in figuring out which strategy is likely to be most effective, it's worth noting that the party sitting across the way is itself making a significant break from the brokerage model. Rather than simply governing based on pragmatic concerns as issues turn up, the Cons have relentlessly kept their focus on a few topics ("tough on crime!" "support the troops!") to create an enduring long-term brand for themselves. And they've dealt with anything outside their preferred messages only to the extent they face overwhelming pressure to do so (and then only by mouthing agreement or changing the subject rather than trying to co-opt competing interests).

Which poses a challenge for anybody seeking to oppose the Cons from a brokerage perspective. After all, won't a party seeking to redefine itself when the writ drops figure to have a far more difficult time persuading voters than one which has spent years building and promoting a distinct public image of itself that it can tap into at will?

Granted, the Cons' messages have also been interspersed with the usual brokerage language as well; indeed, their quick attacks on each Lib leader are best seen as trying to control that portion of the political playing field as well. And there's probably room for them to lose enough credibility on that front for some of the rest of their message to crumble.

But even if the history of Canadian politics is one of temporary electoral coalitions rather than strong public positioning and posturing over time to build brand loyalty, I don't think there's much room for doubt that the Cons are seriously challenging the model. And it remains to be seen whether a brokerage party which sees itself as best off avoiding strong stands the vast majority of the time can focus enough enthusiasm and energy to push back when an election campaign begins.