Alberta Premier Jason Kenney addresses delegates at the annual Alberta United Conservative Party convention in Calgary on Nov. 20, 2021. Mr. Kenney is facing a leadership review to stay on as leader.TODD KOROL/Reuters
David Mitchell is a Calgary-based author and historian.
Political parties have two primary responsibilities with respect to leaders: They hire them, or they can fire them.
Only rarely do they do the latter. However, parties that have lost elections typically enter a period of introspection, including a leadership review or, in the event of a resignation, a full-fledged leadership contest. Even more rarely, governing parties will organize a review in response to significant internal dissension, disruptive calls for unity or when leaders trail their party in public approval.
This makes the current leadership review of Premier Jason Kenney by Alberta’s governing United Conservative Party such an intriguing exercise. After all, political parties today are chiefly vehicles for the ambitions of their leaders. Therefore, when a governing party launches a leadership review, something must be seriously amiss.
Indeed, with only a year remaining to the next provincial election, the rancour and disharmony within the UCP is remarkable. The United Conservative Party is anything but united.
Almost 60,000 party members are eligible to vote in Mr. Kenney’s leadership review. Although he has drawn upon many advantages as an incumbent leader in the process, the results may not guarantee his future.
Consider how previous political leadership reviews have played out, paying particular attention to the threshold of approval considered necessary to declare a victory.
The most important modern reference point occurred in 1983 when former prime minister Joe Clark received the support of 66.9 per cent of Progressive Conservative delegates in a leadership review: He considered it insufficient to silence the critics within his party. He called for a leadership convention, which he subsequently lost to Brian Mulroney. Many have second-guessed Mr. Clark’s fateful decision; but, since that time, a bare minimum of two-thirds support has been considered essential for any party leader to survive a leadership review.
In 1986, federal Liberal leader and former prime minister John Turner was endorsed by 76 per cent of voting delegates. He remained leader until 1990.
Past federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair stepped down in 2016 after receiving only 48 per cent support at the party’s convention in Edmonton.
And this year, Conservative Erin O’Toole became the first Canadian political leader to be sacked by a vote of his parliamentary caucus under the Reform Act passed in 2015. Mr. O’Toole led his party to defeat in the 2021 federal election and, although he wished to stay on as leader, was removed from his position through a leadership review by a caucus vote of 73 to 45.
Provincial parties in Canada also have some limited but instructive experience with leadership reviews.
Thomas Mulcair, left, and his wife Catherine Pinhas during the NDP leadership convention in Toronto on March 24, 2012. Mr. Mulcair stepped down in 2016 after receiving only 48 per cent support at the party’s convention in Edmonton.Chris Young/The Canadian Press
Former Quebec premier Bernard Landry, whose Parti Québécois had lost a provincial election, quit immediately at a 2005 party convention despite earning 76.2-per-cent approval in a leadership confidence vote. He apparently felt this was insufficient support to continue.
But perhaps the most relevant precedent was the long-serving Alberta premier, Ralph Klein, who faced a 2006 review by his Progressive Conservative Party. Although he had indicated his intention to retire in 2008, he was at the time facing an internal revolt. A leadership review was organized by the party and Mr. Klein said he felt 75-per-cent approval was needed in order to continue at the helm. He announced his resignation shortly after receiving a convention vote that gave him only 55-per-cent support.
Mr. Klein’s sad departure is an extraordinary instance of a premier losing his job as a result of a party leadership review. But political leaders should always be held accountable, to the general public during elections and to members of their parties between elections.
Mr. Kenney has stated he believes that 50 per cent plus one might be sufficient to win the day. Technically, that’s true.
But without a convincing, even overwhelming, vote of confidence, how could he possibly continue to lead a divided party to success in the next election?
History – and common sense – suggests this may be a time for humility to take precedence over hubris.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.