My decision to support Jean Charest as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is informed by both policy and a meditation on the difficulty I have supporting Pierre Poilievre. While my policy preferences align more closely with Charest’s, I prefer his more balanced form of expression. I realise this latter factor might be appreciated more by my generation, but it offers me a sense of stability and predictability.
My fundamental concern with Poilievre, however, is crystallized in part by the work of Jan-Werner Müller: if our democratic institutions—which include our parties—provide a forum to enable the debate among conflicting views, and to have a successful debate we must recognise the legitimacy of opposing views, that holders of those views have standing, then I find Poilievre’s attacks on Charest a debasement of those fundamentals. By questioning whether he is a Conservative and casting him as a Liberal, for example, Poilievre is attempting to delegitimize the Charest candidacy. Poilievre is attempting to remove Charest’s right to join the debate. Poilievre is declaring himself as the legitimate Conservative voice. He could have taken direct focus on Charest’s policies that he feels violate the Conservative agenda, but he chose not to; rather he attacked the individual, his right to participate, his standing.
And this is why I am so disappointed in Harper’s endorsement. The former Prime Minister has lent credence to this form of attack. It is a ceremonial truncation of debate. I am left with a sense that there is no place in this Party for those align with the other points of view in this leadership debate. It is an expulsion. So, if Poilievre wins this campaign, I don’t expect to be welcome in this party. I am deeply saddened.
Leave a Reply