What can be learned from the recent elections in the United Kingdom and Australia, where conservatives have gained significant ground but (as in Canada) not enough to achieve a majority government?
In Britain, it was generally expected that the deeply unpopular Labour government of Gordon Brown would be soundly defeated by David Cameron's Conservatives. But when it came time to vote in May, Mr. Cameron was denied a majority and obliged to enter into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in order to form a government.
In Australia, the conservative Liberal-National coalition was soundly defeated by Kevin Rudd's Labor Party in 2007, and it was generally expected that the conservatives would be in the political wilderness for years. But declining public support for Labor due to flip-flops on the environment and public antipathy to proposed tax increases resulted in Mr. Rudd's ouster in an internal coup and a revival of conservative fortunes under Liberal Leader Tony Abbott. While the final results of the Aug. 21 election are still being tallied, it's clear that both the conservative coalition and Labor are shy of the 76 seats needed for a majority. The decision of who gets to form a government now rests with a handful of independents and a Green MP.
In Britain, Mr. Cameron initially distanced his party from Margaret Thatcher's legacy of fiscal conservatism and sought to broaden his base through environmental initiatives and attempts to redefine the welfare state. The conservatives were right to try to broaden their base, but more than once Mr. Cameron had to return to more traditional conservative ground, especially in the last stages of the campaign.
Australia's Mr. Abbott, on the other hand, stuck to more traditional themes and positions. Known as a strong but tolerant social and fiscal conservative, he was consistently on message throughout the campaign and, unlike Labor, did not offer the voters any unpleasant surprises.
The lesson for conservatives seeking to broaden their base is to move out incrementally from their traditional base, not in quantum jumps or in ways that will surprise the electorate. Seek to expand, but build from your strengths and blend traditional messages with new ones.
As voters in Canada, Britain and Australia appear reluctant to give any one party a clear majority, much more attention needs to be given by political practitioners to developing the art and science of coalition-building.
Britain has not had a hung parliament since 1974. But this is the situation Mr. Cameron faced as he cobbled together a coalition government with Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats. In Australia, hung parliaments are rare; the last was in the 1940 election. In the most recent election, it looks like neither Labor's Julia Gillard nor Mr. Abbott can form a government without some form of coalition with the independents and the Green MP.
There are, of course, two broad categories of political coalitions: "principled coalitions," which are based on some agreement on common values and policies such as that established by Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay when the Conservative Party of Canada was created out of the Canadian Alliance and the old Progressive Conservative Party; and "coalitions of expediency," which are formed solely for the sake of seizing some short-term political opportunity such as that briefly entertained by the federal Liberals, Bloc Québécois and NDP in 2008.
Principled coalition-building is a skill that should be encouraged and developed. Politicians with the long-range interests of their country at heart should avoid coalitions of expediency, which rightly arouse cynicism and offend the democratic sensibilities of the electorate. While principled coalition-building is applicable to creating and managing minority governments, the skill might first be applied to broadening and solidifying your own party base.
Mr. Cameron's attempt to put a greener face on conservatism is admirable and necessary in the long run, but it has not been wholly successful. In Australia, Labor's flip-flop on an emissions trading scheme contributed heavily to Mr. Rudd's demise, and disagreement over how to handle the issue also led to a change of leadership for the Liberals (Malcolm Turnbull was replaced by Mr. Abbott). But, in both elections, neither party felt it could avoid taking positions on environmental issues despite the difficulties and divisions inherent in doing so.
Even amid a severe economic downturn, the environment is a defining issue in the way that health care used to be for Canadian politics. There are risks for all political parties, and so they must develop more enlightened and principled approaches.
Finally, despite high-profile "personality campaigns" in Canada, Britain, and Australia - Mr. Harper versus Stéphane Dion, Mr. Brown versus Mr. Cameron, and Ms. Gillard versus Mr. Abbott - public faith in political leaders and parties continues to decline, manifesting itself in the unwillingness of electorates to give any party a parliamentary majority. Reversing this trend should be a priority for us all, especially federal conservatives desirous of forming a principled majority government.
Preston Manning is president and CEO of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy; Nicholas Gafuik is a senior fellow.