This article appeared in Open Canada, January 8, 2025
Lessons from a Messy Leadership Exit
The political adventure Canadians are living through right now is an instructive case for how not to plan a transition of leadership.
By Sergio Marchi, MPM Practitioner-in-Resident 2020-2021.
Over the last year and a half, the nation has grown tired of Justin Trudeau. And for many Canadians, the Prime Minister’s announcement he was leaving was met with measurable relief. Indeed, a huge political fatigue had set in, and with it, a terrible slump in the polls for the Liberal Party and a bonanza for the Opposition Conservative Party. This is not a complete surprise, because as incumbent governments approach a decade in office, many voters itch for a change. We have seen this before, and we will see it again. It’s part of the ebb and flow of a democracy.
Justin Trudeau won three consecutive government mandates, which is a significant accomplishment in and of itself. He came to the Prime Minister’s office with much promise. He was idealistic, young, energetic, and promised to do politics ‘differently.’ In his victory speech, he turned to Laurier’s ‘sunny ways’ for inspiration. During his time in office, he also ushered in meaningful policies dealing with climate change, child poverty, Indigenous reconciliation, the renewal of NAFTA, and childcare, to name a few. However, by the time he announced his departure last Monday, much of the party, caucus, and country were frustrated and angry with him.
There will be plenty of time to assess and debate his legacy. But today, in the immediate aftermath of his decision to step away, the more pertinent questions are; why did he wait so long to decide his fate, in the face of strong political head winds? Why was his exit so badly managed, especially following the bizarre firing of his former Finance Minister, right before she was to deliver an economic update in the House of Commons? Where does this leave the country now? And what lessons can we learn from this unnecessary political drama?
A few thoughts.
First, in politics, ‘timing is everything.’ Before jumping into the political arena, one must studiously contemplate and evaluate all the relevant factors and circumstances, in order to ensure that your decision is well received and strikes with maximum success. A misguided and poorly thought-out plan can end your campaign before it even begins. The same holds true for when one is thinking of hanging up the gloves. Above all, leave on your own timetable, while you are at the top of your game.
Trudeau clearly failed on this front. By waiting too long, he lost control of the political narrative and became its victim. Voters grew increasingly restless, polls continued to tank, and his caucus-support gradually melted away. He also became isolated, and inadvertently backed himself into a tight, lonely corner, robbed of any viable options. His resignation, therefore, was inevitable.
Secondly, why did his caucus wait until the bitter end before applying pressure on him to reconsider leading them into the next election? Where were they over a year ago, when they knew what the odds were of winning an election with Trudeau at the helm? Why did many of them trash him in private conversations, while supporting him publicly? I get it. Given the immense power that PM’s yield, it’s intimidating to raise your voice, and question the Boss. I know, I was there.
But when an MP has serious misgivings about the leader, they must find the courage to express their feelings. They must be honest with the leader. Otherwise, their judgement will be wildly off. That’s why I advise newly elected representatives that good politics and good public policy always start with the truth.
Moreover, no matter how effective a leader is, no matter how popular they may be in any given moment, they are never, ever bigger than their party or the country. In a democracy, they are public servants, not rulers. And when they forget, they need to be reminded.
Third, there are plenty of contenders for the vacancy – names such as Freeland, Champagne, Joly, Anand, Carney, Clark, and Leblanc have been circulating for some time. And they would each bring their own valuable experiences, attributes and ideas to the job. But realistically, because of the two foregoing factors, the odds of Liberals winning the next campaign are extremely slim.
One of the core obligations of any party leader is to leave successors with a strong party and enough time for the new leader to prepare and properly introduce themselves to Canadians. Regrettably, Trudeau has left leadership candidates with neither.
They are now almost out of runway. While the House of Commons is prorogued until the end of March, the Opposition Parties are committed to bringing down the minority government at the first opportunity when Parliament resumes. Plus, by the time they run through the Liberal Party’s leadership process, the new Prime Minister will have precious little time to make a favourable impression with voters. That perception will likely be forged only during a spring election campaign. Talk about jumping into the deep end of the political pool!
In addition, the Conservative Party is some 20-24 points ahead of the Liberal Party in most public opinion surveys. It will take a political miracle, during a short period of time, to overcome such a commanding lead. Personally, I believe that most Canadians have already made up their minds and turned the page on the Liberal Party. And I have seen this ‘movie’ before.
In 1984, when I first ran federally, Brian Mulroney was not going to be denied, regardless of who was leading us or what promises we made. After almost 16 years of Pierre Trudeau, Canadians desperately wanted a change and they got it, handing the Conservative Party the largest landslide victory in Canadian political history.
Then in 1993, Jean Chretien was simply unbeatable. Canadians had soured on Mulroney to such a degree that his party was reduced to two seats under the leadership of Kim Campbell.
While democracies can be unpredictable at the best of times, I think the next election will follow a similar trajectory. The mood for a changing-of-the-guard is immense. This also plays to another political adage that claims that ‘Governments defeat themselves, more than the Opposition win elections.’
Finally, when leaders desperately hold on to power, they can also back the country into an uncomfortable and dangerous corner. Consider the new Trump administration, which takes office in a matter of days. The Donald has threatened us with punishing tariffs, which will require our steadfast resolve if we are to protect our economy from such an unpredictable counterpart.
Moreover, he keeps talking about Canada as a 51st State, and that he would use ‘economic force’ to assimilate us. You may think he is unhinged, but we are better to take him seriously, rather than passing it off as bad humour.
And yet, the Canadian side will be gripped by uncertainty. Our predicament is precarious. As caretaker, Trudeau will be a lame political duck; Ministers will be engaged inwardly in a leadership campaign; the eventual leader will be relatively unknown to most Canadians; and we will not have a PM with a fresh and clear mandate until May at the earliest. On top of this, Pierre Poilievre is most likely to be that PM, which means that as Donald Trump begins his second mandate, he will have dealt with three different Canadian counterparts. Not very reassuring if you’re a Canadian.
Furthermore, without a fully functioning and focused government, so many critical domestic issues will suffer from political inertia, including legislative bills that will now die as a result of prorogation. The same holds true internationally. This year, for example, Canada will chair the annual meeting of G-7 Leaders. While public officials will be busy drafting the briefing books and potential policy positions for this critical summit, the politicians will be busy elsewhere and largely missing in action. And what about the challenges in our bilateral relationships with giants like China, India and Russia, which require ongoing attention? Indeed, a leadership vacuum can be a destabilizing force.
In the end, Canada will survive. Of that, I have no doubt. The resilience of our country, our people, and our institutions, are far stronger than any one leader and government. But why put the country through such a perilous moment? Why create instability when leaders should know better?
In acting as he did, was Trudeau feeling invincible? Did he think he was indispensable to the country’s future? Was he living in a tight political bubble, propped up by largely young staffers, who offered him blind loyalty? Did he think he could simply roll the dice, without any consequences?
Whatever the truth may be, this political adventure we are living through is an instructive case for how not to plan for a transition of leadership in the public domain. To be sure, this also happens in the private sector. But when it does, the fallout typically impacts an individual company, not an entire country.
Canadians will ultimately decide who governs us going forward, and I trust their judgement. But politicians, party officials, and would-be candidates must surely draw some lessons from this careless affair. Otherwise, we run the risk of seriously undermining public confidence, good governance and our country’s future prosperity.