Rise of a Populist — Pierre Poilievre
For the most-part Canadian politics is a seldom talked of topic, mostly due to the uneventful functioning of government affairs, lack of scandal or controversy, and the lack of Canadian mainstream media outlets that monetize the polarization and controversy that inherently exists in politics.
There is one politician that I believe has singly handedly shifted the nature of politics in Canada, mostly to his own benefit and at the expense of healthy political debate.
That politician, who is currently a federal MP from Carleton, is Pierre Poilievre.
Pierre Poilievre has made recent strives to make himself know in the media through his recent antics on camera. He knows how to create controversy around Canadian concerns, which results in him being displayed first-and-foremost in media headlines. He is best know for throwing redacted documents as a prop, calling into question the bias of other MPs during hearings, or repeatedly berating the Prime Minister by repeating the same question during a WE charity scandal hearing.
He made his presence known during the WE charity scandal which implicated Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and many of his family members. This could be seen as his much needed public exposure before he announced his bid for the Conservative leadership in February 2022 after the incumbent Erin O’toole was ousted from his leadership role by his party.
In this fashion he’s framed himself as someone who asks the hard questions, and exposes corruption in the Liberal government’s handling of government affairs.
How do Politicians Drive Populist Resentment?
What Pierre Poilievre does so effectively is he makes many of the same appeals to emotion and resentment as his counterparts in the United States. For anyone who has followed American politics, creating controversy and stoking populist resentment is one of the many ways to drive partisanship between the voters.
It’s much more effective to frame the current government as inept or corrupt rather than argue your case for why you are better at governing. That is because appealing to the disenfranchised and to the fears of voters is much more of an effective tool in driving reaction. If you make voters feel like the election is the most consequential in history (which it is said happens every US federal election), they are more likely to turn out to vote for your cause.
From my perspective there a few ways in which Populists articulate themselves around areas of controversy.
- Basis of Fear
Usually politicians utilize a rich substrate of fear or discomfort to base their rhetoric around. In some countries populist sentiment increases when discussions surround topics such as the suppression of wages, high rates of illegal immigration, or increases in the price of gas. The problem is usually framed with a us-vs-them mentality. An example would be that wages are suppressed because of the greediness of corporations, or illegal immigrants are taking our jobs. Mobilization of voters is more effective when there is a common enemy to band together against.
2. Trivialize and Confuse
There is a manner in which complicated topics are trivialized as if there are easy solutions, and the lack of solution is due to indifference or corruption of the current political class. For example, Pierre Poillievre uses the slogan “Justinflation” to refer to the high rate of inflation currently (as of the writing of this article), and tying that to Justin Trudeau’s policies.
Like most of the developed world experiencing high inflation, that is not something in control of the President/Prime-Minister. Even those tasked with tackling inflation, such as the federal central bank, are sometimes at odds with how to approach the problem. The trivialization usually appeals to those that are ignorant of how things work, and relies on people not understanding context or the things that are or are not within the government’s control.
3. Controversy Spreads Like Wildfire
Populist politicians make heavy use of social media, which, by it’s very nature, spreads very easily when the algorithms begin to pick up on something controversial and viral. Controversy tends to drive more clicks than other forms of content, and creating controversial slogans or taking quotes or actions out of context are ripe content to create outrage around. For example, in a recent tweet Pierre Poilievre referred to a situation in which an audience member at Justin Trudeau’s Townhall event was removed for shouting out of turn. The audience member was holding a Canadian flag with a swastika with the words “Evil Empire”, in reference to his belief that Canada was a fascist country (perhaps in reference to the federal government’s Covid-19 response, or another quarrel). Justin Trudeau has said, “Thank you for coming Sir” when he was escorted by security. Pierre Poillievre took this opportunity to frame this interaction as Justin Trudeau being sympathetic to the heckler with the following tweet:
For those who understand the context, the heckler was referring to the country as being racist; and for those who know Justin Trudeau’s demeanor, he is overly polite to anyone he speaks to. Only for those who read further into the situation does the tweet come across as a smear on the Prime Minister based on incomplete information.
4. Creating Something Out of Nothing
Routine events that have underlying reasons for why they operate the way they do are framed as if something malevolent is going on. This is a specialty of American politicians when they interview witnesses in special Senatorial or Congressional hearings. How it works in the US is that on occasion they bring in a witness who is part of an ongoing investigation, such as someone from the FBI or other investigatory body. When politicians ask questions about ongoing investigations, it’s common practice and routine to not discuss ongoing investigations; or in other circumstances not to confirm or deny an ongoing investigation is even taking place. During the line of questioning, when the witness is asked these questions, the routine responses that are given and have precedent are framed as if the witness if trying to hide something. Theses occurrences are taken out of context and clipped, and it becomes fuel to feed a growing movement that the witnesses (usually from the government) are trying to hide something from the people.
Now Pierre Poillievre played a similar game when he created controversy aroud the redaction of documents surrounding the WE charity scandal. Not only are the people responsible for redaction not part of the Prime Minister’s political party (they are public servants), but the redacted sections are sections which have personal identifiable information visible. Whether the documents are part of a government inquiry or not, personal identifiable information is always redacted — and this is a common occurrence with the release of documents.
For the most part, no politician in Canada have really made an appeal to populist sentiment in Canada. This means their is a fertile conservative base that is available for picking. Media in Canada is not driven by outrage, so while politicians can create controversy where they can, there is an inability to amplify that to the greater base public who do not follow social media careful.
So while Pierre Poillievre is not a force to be recon with yet, given the right media conditions and political polarization in Canada, more individuals like him will certainly rise the ranks of Canadian governance. But for now, we carefully watch his next moves as one of the candidates for the Canadian Conservative leadership.
