Fp Leader Robert Metz

On Thursday, September 10, 1987, voters in Ontario cast their ballots in a provincial general election that gave Ontario's Liberal party the largest majority it has enjoyed in 50 years. The process of ousting the province's Progressive Conservatives, which began with the 1985 general election, was now finally complete.

What had Ontario's voters voted for? What was it that David Peterson and his Liberals were offering that proved to be so appealing?

According to media reports on the day following the election, it was Peterson's "tough free trade stand" combined with about $2.4 billion worth of election promises that prompted his party's landslide victory. The sad truth of the matter, however, is that the Liberal's landslide victory really had more to do with Ontario's rejection of the Progressive Conservatives than it had to do with any active support of the Liberal party.

If there are still those who doubt that most people vote against things rather than for them, then the Liberal Party's decline in popularity and its resounding defeat in the London North byelection (see coverage, elsewhere in this issue) should help prove the point. But it won't prove much else. "Issues", as such, are really only secondary during election campaigns --- and with good reason. In the first place, the major parties generally agree on most of the "issues". But most importantly, there simply isn't the time, opportunity, or desire to debate the issues on any rational basis during an election, because that would require an educational process that simply cannot be condensed into the brief span of any election period.

Thus, whether we like it or not, elections will forever be bound to the public's perception of the issues, the candidates, and their political parties. Since most politicians of the major political parties are philosophically agreed on most of the issues, that leaves the candidates and their political parties as the focal point of an election. "Issues" to the degree they are discussed during elections, are merely trimmings to the fanfare accompanying election fever.

For a relatively new political party like Freedom Party, this reality represents a formidable challenge. Given our "free minds, free markets" philosophy, it also demands an approach to achieving political credibility with the public that may not be seen as the traditional way to get into power. After all, rarely has any political party or candidate achieved electoral victory by promising to spend less on social programs or by advocating more individual responsibility in the matters of personal or public welfare.

To many of our members and supporters, this situation represents the "Catch-22" frustration of advocating individual freedom through an electoral process that, by its nature, appears to run contrary to the nature of individual freedom itself. But that's no reason to become discouraged.

In fact, recognizing the realities of the electoral process is the first step in formulating a realistically workable approach to political success for a party like Freedom Party. The second step is to avoid the pitfall of unrealistic expectations, which generally means not to place too much emphasis on votes too early in our stages of development. The third step is to learn to recognize our success where it has already presented itself, and to build upon that success as our foundation for the future.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002