Opposition parties play crucial roles

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/05/2022 (860 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A popular cliché in political commentary is that governments tend to defeat themselves. There are, in fact, political science studies of so-called “retrospective voting” which indicate that voters judge leaders and their parties based on assessments of their recent performance. This is easiest for a governing party that has an identifiable record of legislation, spending and other decisions that voters can evaluate. Voters may lack detailed knowledge of government activities, but they often develop a general sense of whether a governing party has performed well or poorly. Based on those sentiments they decide whether the governing party deserves another term in office.

Opposition parties perform crucial roles in democracy, yet there are almost no studies that tell us how much voters notice and consider their performance when casting their votes. The opposition can serve as a check on flawed and excessive government actions. It can provide ongoing scrutiny and criticism which helps to hold the governments accountable between elections. And ideally, an opposition can serve as an alternative government in waiting, offering voters a meaningful choice at the next election. If performed effectively, opposition activities can not only detract from the reputation of the governing party, they can also create a positive image that may lead some voters to switch parties at the next election.

Lack of attention to the quality of the opposition parties reflects some fundamental limits on their role compared to governing parties: they lack authority to take actual policy actions, they do not have access to the expert advice of the public service, and their announcements do not generate the same media attention as those from government. For these and other reasons, the opposition is not as prominent in the public mind as the government.

There are two parts to the opposition role which can be in conflict. On the one hand, the opposition must criticize government policies and actions. However, being continuously negative will provoke a public backlash. It also must strive to present itself as an alternative government in waiting. This requires the presentation of policies seen to be different from those of the governing party. Having dwelt on the problems, say in the health-care system, the opposition must then offer credible promises on how to solve them.

Context shapes how opposition performs their roles. Manitoba has a political system polarized along right-versus-left ideological lines. The legislature has come to resemble more a permanent election campaign and less a deliberative assembly. The pandemic, an economic downturn, budget cuts and numerous divisive policy initiatives from a Progressive Conservative government, led by an ideologically rigid, unpopular premier, provided plenty of openings for opposition attacks.

In the legislature, the NDP used the rules and a variety of procedural tactics to put the government on the defensive. It delayed five contentious bills, allowing time for outside groups to organize protests, eventually causing the government to withdraw the bills. Use of the rules to protest contentious bills is legitimate, but it can lead to charges of obstruction, which the NDP faced when it delayed the budget presentation for more than a week in order to be in position to delay bills.

Question period is the main daily accountability forum for governments. The NDP used question period to conduct siege campaigns against the government, especially on downsizing and consolidations within the health-care system. They personalized the tragedies of COVID-19 and the backlogs in the health systems by targeting then-premier Brian Pallister, who was eventually pressured by his own party to leave politics. The NDP has tried, with some success, to portray Premier Heather Stefanson as a clone of her predecessor.

The NDP did several things to present itself as an alternative government in waiting. It issued regular alternative throne speeches to contrast its policy priorities from those of the government. It created a “shadow” cabinet of designated critics to provide training for MLAs who might be ministers in a future NDP government. It promised to respect advice from arm’s-length agencies, like the Public Utilities Board, and to appoint an independent inquiry into the handling of COVID-19.

Kinew became leader after a leadership revolt and a big loss for the NDP in the 2016 election. Even without the prerogatives that come with being in power, he has managed to maintain party unity, increase membership and put the party on a sounder financial foundation. These developments both reflect and reinforce the success of the opposition in challenging an increasingly unpopular government.

I suspect, but cannot prove conclusively, that the effective performance of the NDP in opposition made a significant contribution to its current strong lead in opinion polls. Other observers, for assorted reasons, will disagree with this conclusion. To settle any disagreements, I recommend that the professionals at Probe Research add a question to their next opinion survey asking respondents how much opposition performance will shape their voting intentions.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.