What does the upcoming election mean for Saskatchewan?

By Ken Rasmussen

A number of key elections in Saskatchewan’s history have signalled a major shift in the direction of government and society. The 1944 election of Tommy Douglas’s CCF, the 1964 election of Ross Thatcher’s Liberal party, Allan Blakeney’s election in 1971, Grant Devine’s Tories in 1982, and Roy Romanow coming to office in 1991 were each in their own way a watershed moment for the province. Each of these elections brought about a realignment of voter preferences that produced distinct public policy outcomes and new directions for the province. The question that begs an answer is whether we are witnessing this same process at work in the current election.

Saskatchewan has what can be described as a two-and-a-half party system, in which power shifts between a right or left wing party, with the Liberal party acting as a spoiler without much chance of holding power in its own right. This is similar to Manitoba, which has a party system polarized between the left and the right. Yet in saying we are polarized between the right-leaning Saskatchewan Party and the left-leaning NDP might lead to the conclusion that the election of a new government would automatically bring about a major shift in policy direction for the province.

Yet such a conclusion is problematic. There has been a change over the last decade and a half in what people expect from their governments, along with a more realistic understanding of how much of a change governments can actually bring about, and a recognition of how willing any new government is to confront well-entrenched interests in the name of vague policy outcomes and unsure political payoffs.

Given this, a natural question is whether voters are looking for a fundamental realignment, new policy solutions and a complete break with the past 16 years in the upcoming election. The short answer would appear to be no. What we have been witnessing over the past decade in Canada and around the world, is an increasing convergence in policy solutions, and as a consequence the policy platforms of political parties have become increasingly hard to distinguish.

This was most starkly displayed in the U.K. with Tony Blair’s embrace of the so-called third way, which was actually an easy acceptance of Margaret Thatcher’s market reforms, with increased social spending in a few selected areas. The same thing occurred in Canada when the Liberal party switched horses in the mid-'90s to become a party dedicated to deficit fighting, cutting budgets and reducing the size of government. The Liberals abandoned their former position as the supporters and advocates of state spending, generous social programs and Keynsian economic policy.

Crowding in the middle

This same process can be witnessed in Saskatchewan, where the policy differences between the two major parties have continued to converge as each aggressively moves toward the centre of the political spectrum. This has resulted in the NDP bringing about lower taxes and cuts in services and budgets, while facing strikes and labour unrest with its union allies, and generally governing in a moderate manner. While Roy Romanow did not have much of an opportunity for bold experiments in policy given the financial situation he inherited, Lorne Calvert, who has had healthy budget surpluses, has still chosen a middle path, with some modest increases in social spending, tax cuts for most citizens and a centrist approach to policy making.

What then does this elections signal, and what can we expect after election day? While it is obvious that an NDP election victory will bring about more of the same, this is not such a bad thing, and the Calvert government has offered the people of Saskatchewan what most observers would call good government. Balanced budgets, increases in social spending, a reasonably well-planned and executed agenda, incremental changes and few major missteps and or scandals.

What would the election of the Saskatchewan Party mean? Given the policy convergence among political parties, one would expect a similar agenda of modest reformism, with some slight changes on the margins. For example, when a right-of-centre government gets elected in Saskatchewan it usually makes changes to the trade union act and labour standards act, generally shifting the balance in favour of employers. Just as the NDP is expected to favour unions in its establishment of a collective bargaining framework, the Saskatchewan Party would be expected to support employers. Likewise, further hikes to the minimum wage would be unlikely, sales tax cuts would be possible and changes in the royalty rates for oil will probably be on the agenda. Would we expect to see anything as dramatic as a “common sense revolution”? That would be unlikely given that the Saskatchewan Party is campaigning on its modest, centre-of-the-road reformist agenda, and has clearly avoided hot-button issues like privatization, contracting out and public service bashing.

Elections, based on recent data, are less about party leaders and are more about the way political parties position themselves regarding voter preferences. This message from the parties, more than the personality of the leader, is considered crucial in the decision-making process of voters. This is particularly important now that most voters see themselves as free agents, with no well-established party preferences or entrenched loyalty, and willing to switch parties from election to election.

What this means is that the parties have little room to manoeuvre. With high levels of existing public spending and little appetite for any major tax increases, most parties are now obliged to pledge to hold the line on tax increases, or promise modest cuts to taxes. It would be hard to tell who is keener on tax cuts, the Saskatchewan Party or the NDP in the upcoming election. Likewise both parties are pledging to find strategies to keep young people in the province, invest in infrastructure, build community-based social policy, hire more nurses and so on.

Winners and losers

Does it matter which party wins? Yes, it always makes a difference, and each election produces winners and losers in any society. If the Saskatchewan Party wins we are likely to see changes at the margins in a number of policies, a number of symbolic shifts toward business, and increases in the size of provincial budgets based on rising health-care costs and infrastructure upgrades. Does an election of the Saskatchewan Party mean a return to the Grant Devine era? Are we in for Mike Harris’s Common Sense Revolution? These are unlikely scenarios, in part because the Saskatchewan Party gives no indication that this is its intention. Voters are not interested in large-scale social changes, and there appears little appetite for social conflict in the province.

What then would explain a change in government in Saskatchewan if it does? People sometimes sense that long periods of uninterrupted rule are not healthy for any political jurisdiction and intuitively understand the need to circulate the leadership group in the province. That will be little comfort to the NDP if it loses the election, especially given that the party has run a competent, prudent, effective government and has an excellent record of achievement to run on. Sometimes, however, your record is not enough to win an election. The answer to this question however, will come on November 7, 2007.

 

The CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites. External links will open in a new window.