Last week, with great fanfare, the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), Jagmeet Singh, tore up the agreement that bound his party to that of Justin Trudeau. This agreement aimed to keep the minority Liberal government in power until 2025. This affair clearly illustrates the fact that political games are not just about trivial squabbles that sometimes disgust us, or even empty discussions. It is also a reminder, in my opinion, of the value of debate in the vitality of our democracies.
Less than a week before Mr. Singh’s announcement, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, had managed to attract the attention of the Canadian political world by writing a letter to his NDP counterpart urging him to end this agreement, which he considered infamous. He indirectly threatened to spread an unflattering jibe about him in the event of a lack of cooperation. Mr. Poilievre’s remarks got people talking, much to the displeasure of those who, like me, were saddened by this intimidation strategy.
Of course, the Conservative leader was speaking primarily to his potential supporters, who were already relatively sensitive to his Liberal anger, and to those who help keep them in power, rather than to voters who felt that his behaviour was reminiscent of a rude child. I have the impression that, in doing so, the Conservatives have mostly succeeded in speaking to people who are already convinced, or almost.
Backed by a thoughtful and varied strategic arsenal, Jagmeet Singh announced his divorce from the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) like a coup de théâtre. Press releases, interviews, videos, news scoops: the NDP’s point of view may not have succeeded in rallying everyone, but it tipped the debate in its favor and, above all, it succeeded in reaching a broader audience. We almost forgot the Conservatives’ blackmail, that’s saying something. Unlike their adversaries, the New Democrats succeeded in their operation aimed at speaking to their supporters, but also to voters disappointed with the Liberal record. Perhaps more importantly, they also probably succeeded in positioning themselves as adversaries of the LPC, rather than allies, and this, just in time for the by-elections on September 16.
The Liberals’ surprise response missed the mark, so much so that Mr. Trudeau’s remarks received little media coverage. Perhaps the prime minister had not anticipated receiving this slap in the face so early in the session. His prime ministerial duties were keeping him focused that day much more than a potential pre-election about-face. At least that’s the impression he wanted to give.
Finally, Yves-François Blanchet seemed to me to have navigated these waters rather well, taking advantage of the platforms he won to deliver a speech in the tone of the “good teacher” that he is usually known for, explaining what the situation meant for his political party and what he thought Quebecers should think about it. Frankly, the Bloc Québécois’ point of view did not, in my opinion, match the home run of the New Democratic Party, which remains the champion of media attention in this story.
From my perspective as a neophyte political scientist, what is fascinating here is the powerful illustration of the battle for media framing that this affair constitutes. In other words, the political actors on the federal scene have shown us in this theater that they are not bickering for the sake of bickering, as some citizens unfortunately sometimes like to believe.
In Media coverage of politicsVirginie Hébert, assistant professor at the Centre Urbanisation Culture Société of the Institut national de la recherche scientifique, and Thierry Giasson, full professor at Université Laval, explain that “framing is the subject of constant struggles between political actors and media actors who try to impose their own logic in order to achieve their respective objectives.” In light of this explanation, we understand that we are not in front of a banal squabble between political actors. Rather, we are witnessing a positioning in a pre-election race during which the actors play their games in an optimal way in order to shine “their own reading grids of the issues” to targeted audiences.
I am passionate about democracy because it is a relatively harmonious way of organizing our political disputes in order to live and progress socially together in peace. I confess to being disappointed by the cynicism fueled by the use of petty political games by certain protagonists in the political joust.
A certain idealism still makes me believe that the key political players that are the leaders of the federal political parties should take advantage of their privileged media platforms to put forward the best of what our society has to offer. In this sense, I invite my fellow citizens to find the symbolic value of each debate for the health of our democracy and, why not, to take advantage of the insight that the theoretical contributions of experienced political scientists can offer us in order to put a stop to the simplistic echoes that reduce the exercise of politics to meaningless discussions.