Tom Flanagan, conservative extraordinaire, gave a presentation on June 3 for the 2010 Congress of the Humanities and Sciences in Montreal.
This presentation can be read here, at CBC’s Inside Politics. I highly recommend that readers check it out: it's a great insider account of the evolution of the Conservative Party of Canada, from the Reform days under Preston Manning to what we have now.
Speaking as someone who isn't happy with what we have now, I found the presentation particularly interesting. It shows that, while Preston Manning enforced a sort of balance between party populism and central control, his protégé, Stephen Harper, has moved more and more towards the central control approach. Harper has abolished some of the internal party structures which helped decentralize power.
The situation has not been helped by the fact the Conservatives, along with most other federal parties, are in a constant state of campaign readiness.
The party has accomplished a lot with their centralized strategy, and it's entirely possible that this approach has worked in their favor. But there have been consequences: for instance, policy is less populist-driven and there is less involvement by party constituents in its development. For a policy guy like me, this is a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile, even the fund-raising process has become more centralized. Again, might be a good thing for the party organization but has become a point of contention for some ridings because they have to compete with the national party for donations.
Furthermore, I think Flanagan's report speaks to the character of Stephen Harper. Basically, he's a control freak. For good reason, perhaps: he's had some bad experiences with internal party infighting. (Although he was also a control freak during his time with the National Citizens Coalition—just ask former NCC vice-president, Gerry Nicholls.
But as fellow blogger Graham Sproule noted the last time that we spoke, Harper has a vindictive streak that might well be mixed with a desire to avoid conflict. This could explain the prorogation of Paliament: Harper wanted to get his way but also wanted to avoid an open conflict. So, what's a leader to do? Well, prorogue of course! To be fair, party strategist Guy Giorno deserves his share of the blame for that disastrous decision—he's a fairly vindictive guy too, by the sound of it—but it was Harper who signed off on the idea.
Whatever. The situation is the way it is. But Flanagan's presentation really outlines how the right-wing political movement in this country has evolved. I would argue this evolution has been bad for grassroots conservatism but good for political conservatism (put another way, the evolution benefits certain politicians but few others). Indeed, the collapse of principled conservatism in Canada could probably be pinned in part on the exact strategies which merged the Alliance and the PCs, and propelled Harper into office where he's been stuck in a minority situation ever since.
But enough of my bellyaching. Read Flanagan's presentation. It'll be worth your time.
Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaptainkobold/386350652/
