What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

Then why are the Ontario MPs still stuck with Doug Ford?

As Malthus already pointed out, Doug Ford is not doing what Trump is doing.

[Malthus]

That is a political distinction, not a cultural one.

It is a political distinction, but it emerges out of, and reflects, a significant set of cultural differences - as I pointed out above, our Canadian constitution employs the phrase "Peace, Order and Good Government", which has wormed its way into the Canadian way of doing things - more emphasis on maintaining social order, more on acting on consensus, and less emphasis on the individual personality of our leaders.

With this goes other important differences, such as a greater respect for the rule of law, which is both cultural (it is no accident that the "Mountie" is a significant Canadian symbol) and institutional.

Ironically or not, the US may have emerged as a republic that rejected monarchy, but the President is far more like a monarch than a PM (albeit a temporary one). No-one in Canada would ever dream of claiming a PM was effectively above the law while in office, yet Trump's supporters have made that claim.

[Valmy]

I recall one of the anti-Federalist criticisms of the office of President was that it was really just a short term version of a Polish King. Which is ridiculous, no Polish King ever had as much power as our President.

[Barrister]

Ironically or not, the US may have emerged as a republic that rejected monarchy, but the President is far more like a monarch than a PM (albeit a temporary one). No-one in Canada would ever dream of claiming a PM was effectively above the law while in office, yet Trump's supporters have made that claim.

I don't know - the SNV Lavelin scam showed how tenuous our own justice system is, on how reliant it is on norms and the honour system.  There's nothing really preventing a PM (as long as they have the support of their own party in a majority government) from firing the DPP, firing the head of the RCMP, ordering investigations of political rivals.  All of it would be highly outrageous and controversial, but there's nothing stopping it from happening.

[Grey Fox]

Then why are the Ontario MPs still stuck with Doug Ford?

As Malthus already pointed out, Doug Ford is not doing what Trump is doing.

He's not the Federal Premier so he can't destroy Canada's reputation internationally but he is profiteering in the same ways.

[Oexmelin]

We had a good long discussion circa 2016 about why Trump could not exist in the Canadian Parliamentary system.  It think the consensus we reached then that he could not is even more accurate now.  But to summarize - we don't elect a Prime Minister directly.  We elect MPs.  The MPs of the governing party do not have to wait for a set separate election cycle to become PM.  If they can replace a sitting PM they become PM with no election.  Sure a party leader has a lot of power, but that power is dependent on keeping the sitting MPs happy - just ask former PM May.  It would be very hard for a leader of a party to attack their own establishment party members the way Trump has done and stay in power. 

I think it's a useful distinction, but it is no insurance to the emergence of populist movements, and the subversion of norms. I think my point then still stands: a Canadian populist may require a different strategy - because of the different political system - but may yet emerge. It is a dangerous path to trust the empty formula of the Constitution to do much work in the current political climate: witness how the Americans who were supposed to be the most ardent defenders of a much more inspiring Constitution jettison it the moment it's convenient. How much more irrelevant then would be the Canadian constitution, that glorified prospectus for a railroad.

Trump may be able to threaten members of Congress into submission, but that's because he can turn his own brand of charisma against them - more than his role as a President, it's his status as celebrity warrior-champion of a chosen cause that makes him untouchable by the Republican base. I don't think the Canadian political system is immune from some charismatic figure creating and thus controlling their own party made up of nobodies. In a paradoxical way, the existence of two very different publics (French speaking, and English speaking) may also provide some protection. 

[crazy canuck]

Then why are the Ontario MPs still stuck with Doug Ford?

As Malthus already pointed out, Doug Ford is not doing what Trump is doing.

He's not the Federal Premier so he can't destroy Canada's reputation internationally but he is profiteering in the same ways.

No, Ford is not attacking his own MPs.

I think it's a useful distinction, but it is no insurance to the emergence of populist movements, and the subversion of norms. I think my point then still stands: a Canadian populist may require a different strategy - because of the different political system - but may yet emerge. It is a dangerous path to trust the empty formula of the Constitution to do much work in the current political climate: witness how the Americans who were supposed to be the most ardent defenders of a much more inspiring Constitution jettison it the moment it's convenient. How much more irrelevant then would be the Canadian constitution, that glorified prospectus for a railroad.

Trump may be able to threaten members of Congress into submission, but that's because he can turn his own brand of charisma against them - more than his role as a President, it's his status as celebrity warrior-champion of a chosen cause that makes him untouchable by the Republican base. I don't think the Canadian political system is immune from some charismatic figure creating and thus controlling their own party made up of nobodies. In a paradoxical way, the existence of two very different publics (French speaking, and English speaking) may also provide some protection. 

I agree our system is not immune and we need to be wary about Parliamentary norms being eroded.  It will be interesting to see how it works out in the UK now.  Might have to rethink the current view.

[Barrister]

We had a good long discussion circa 2016 about why Trump could not exist in the Canadian Parliamentary system.  It think the consensus we reached then that he could not is even more accurate now.  But to summarize - we don't elect a Prime Minister directly.  We elect MPs.  The MPs of the governing party do not have to wait for a set separate election cycle to become PM.  If they can replace a sitting PM they become PM with no election.  Sure a party leader has a lot of power, but that power is dependent on keeping the sitting MPs happy - just ask former PM May.  It would be very hard for a leader of a party to attack their own establishment party members the way Trump has done and stay in power.

I missed this post at first.

What you're missing is that our Parliamentary system is different from Britain's.  MPs can not replace their leader in the Canadian system.  Each party has its own mechanism for triggering a leadership election - and pretty much each party has it involve the party members, not MPs.  That's what led to situations like Paul Martin's warfare with Chretien during the early oughts.  Or where the Canadian Alliance MPs generally lost faith with Stockwell Day, causing several to split and form an independent caucus.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I personally think Trump could happen in Canada, Boris happened in a Parliamentary system, and while I think we'd all agree he is much more fit for office than Trump, he also would be seen as broadly unfit for office even 10 years ago in my opinion. Much like in the United States he got in due to a broader shifting in society to where traditional leadership traits are no longer valued.

Trump got in office through a long term sociocultural decline in the Uniter States, if a similar decline happened in Canada I believe the quality of political leadership could follow. The Westminster system obviously would be a tad harder for such a figure to emerge, since you don't have the option of getting in "over the top" via a primary system, but must work within the party. That being said look at how deeply unpopular and unsuitable Corbyn took control of the Labour party. I think all Western democracies are at risk, and should be making structural changes to make it even harder still for people like Trump to take office.

[crazy canuck]

We had a good long discussion circa 2016 about why Trump could not exist in the Canadian Parliamentary system.  It think the consensus we reached then that he could not is even more accurate now.  But to summarize - we don't elect a Prime Minister directly.  We elect MPs.  The MPs of the governing party do not have to wait for a set separate election cycle to become PM.  If they can replace a sitting PM they become PM with no election.  Sure a party leader has a lot of power, but that power is dependent on keeping the sitting MPs happy - just ask former PM May.  It would be very hard for a leader of a party to attack their own establishment party members the way Trump has done and stay in power.

I missed this post at first.

What you're missing is that our Parliamentary system is different from Britain's.  MPs can not replace their leader in the Canadian system.  Each party has its own mechanism for triggering a leadership election - and pretty much each party has it involve the party members, not MPs.  That's what led to situations like Paul Martin's warfare with Chretien during the early oughts.  Or where the Canadian Alliance MPs generally lost faith with Stockwell Day, causing several to split and form an independent caucus.

You are just quibbling about process.  The essential fact is that an MP can become PM without an election.

I personally think Trump could happen in Canada, Boris happened in a Parliamentary system, and while I think we'd all agree he is much more fit for office than Trump, he also would be seen as broadly unfit for office even 10 years ago in my opinion. Much like in the United States he got in due to a broader shifting in society to where traditional leadership traits are no longer valued.

Trump got in office through a long term sociocultural decline in the Uniter States, if a similar decline happened in Canada I believe the quality of political leadership could follow. The Westminster system obviously would be a tad harder for such a figure to emerge, since you don't have the option of getting in "over the top" via a primary system, but must work within the party. That being said look at how deeply unpopular and unsuitable Corbyn took control of the Labour party. I think all Western democracies are at risk, and should be making structural changes to make it even harder still for people like Trump to take office.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by whether Trump can happen somewhere.  Of course right wing populism can happen anywhere.  PMs can be elected even if unfit to govern so long as they are popular with the MPs.  But that is the big difference, they must maintain their popularity with sitting MPs.  That was the only way Boris could become PM.

[Barrister]

I suppose it depends on what is meant by whether Trump can happen somewhere.  Of course right wing populism can happen anywhere.  PMs can be elected even if unfit to govern so long as they are popular with the MPs.  But that is the big difference, they must maintain their popularity with sitting MPs.  That was the only way Boris could become PM.

But they don't need to be popular with their MPs.  An MP who disagrees with what the leader does has exactly one recourse: vote against the leader and get kicked out of caucus.  There's no lesser action.  MPs can not replace the leader.

[The Brain]

I personally think Trump could happen in Canada

It can't happen there.

[Sheilbh]

I missed this post at first.

What you're missing is that our Parliamentary system is different from Britain's.  MPs can not replace their leader in the Canadian system.  Each party has its own mechanism for triggering a leadership election - and pretty much each party has it involve the party members, not MPs.  That's what led to situations like Paul Martin's warfare with Chretien during the early oughts.  Or where the Canadian Alliance MPs generally lost faith with Stockwell Day, causing several to split and form an independent caucus.

That's also true in the UK. Jeremy Corbyn lost a no-confidence vote of MPs 172-40, but that just opens on a leadership election and the membership wanted him. Similarly Theresa May survived the Parliamentary party's no-confidence motions, it was when enough local associations had requested an Emergency General Meeting of the party that she stepped down. The Lib Dems have an incredibly complex federal governing structure.

In the UK the fact that MPs no longer have the ultimate say is actually blamed for the parties choosing more extreme leaderships - this goes back to Iain Duncan Smith's () victory in 2002.

It depends what you mean by "Trump not happening here". I'm not sure any system is necessarily protected from a "takeover". Netanyahu, Modi, Orban and Erdogan have all to differing degrees upended political norms in parliamentary democracies. It's more difficult but I don't think there's some structural reason it couldn't happen here.

I personally think Trump could happen in Canada, Boris happened in a Parliamentary system, and while I think we'd all agree he is much more fit for office than Trump, he also would be seen as broadly unfit for office even 10 years ago in my opinion. Much like in the United States he got in due to a broader shifting in society to where traditional leadership traits are no longer valued.

I'm not so sure with Boris. He was already a power-player in the Tory party and just elected as Mayor of London in 2009. There was lots of talk about him being a Tory leader because he could reach voters other Tories couldn't. I think the point when he was seen as unfit for office was last time he was in high office when he was a dreadful Foreign Secretary and there were lots of previous allies basically saying he's not up to a big job.

But here we are.

[Malthus]

Ironically or not, the US may have emerged as a republic that rejected monarchy, but the President is far more like a monarch than a PM (albeit a temporary one). No-one in Canada would ever dream of claiming a PM was effectively above the law while in office, yet Trump's supporters have made that claim.

I don't know - the SNV Lavelin scam showed how tenuous our own justice system is, on how reliant it is on norms and the honour system.  There's nothing really preventing a PM (as long as they have the support of their own party in a majority government) from firing the DPP, firing the head of the RCMP, ordering investigations of political rivals.  All of it would be highly outrageous and controversial, but there's nothing stopping it from happening.

I don't think it is merely quirks in our political system that prevent such an outcome, or at least, make it more difficult - that's why I mention culture as well.

Of course cultures can change, but so far, attempts to stir up US-style populism here have not been successful; the population simply isn't polarized into two warring camps in the same way.

I'm not saying it is impossible to happen here. Who knows what the future holds.

However, the original assertion I was arguing against was that Canada was just the same, culturally, as the US. This I disagree with, and one major difference lies in how Canadians currently approach such matters as the rule of law and respect for institutions.

[Malthus]

I personally think Trump could happen in Canada, Boris happened in a Parliamentary system, and while I think we'd all agree he is much more fit for office than Trump, he also would be seen as broadly unfit for office even 10 years ago in my opinion. Much like in the United States he got in due to a broader shifting in society to where traditional leadership traits are no longer valued.

Trump got in office through a long term sociocultural decline in the Uniter States, if a similar decline happened in Canada I believe the quality of political leadership could follow. The Westminster system obviously would be a tad harder for such a figure to emerge, since you don't have the option of getting in "over the top" via a primary system, but must work within the party. That being said look at how deeply unpopular and unsuitable Corbyn took control of the Labour party. I think all Western democracies are at risk, and should be making structural changes to make it even harder still for people like Trump to take office.

Yeah, that I can agree with - but he can't happen here under the culture we have now. The culture would have to change so as to allow for that.