Singh and Bernier need better stories

OAKVILLE, ONT.—If I were to turn the next Canadian federal election into a screenplay or novel, I’d have a tough time plotting a realistic narrative for some of my drama’s characters. Mind you, I’m not talking here about the story’s major players—Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—as writing narratives for them would be easy. For instance, I’d write Poilievre as a plucky, brash, political brawler who’s determined—against all odds—to topple a powerful Liberal wokist regime so he can avenge past Conservative losses, fix a broken Canada, and restore glory to his ideological kinsmen. I’d portray Trudeau, on the other hand, as a world-weary and battle-hardened warrior who must lead his troops into battle one last time in a desperate bid to save his progressive and cosmopolitan land from an onslaught of right-wing, gun-loving, Bible-thumping populist hordes. As you can see, both Trudeau and Poilievre make for an excellent protagonist and antagonist; each character is fleshed out, each has strong motivations and clear goals. But the same cannot be said for the story’s supporting characters. Consider, for example, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh. How would I define the goals and motivations of Singh’s character in my drama? Well, considering how the New Democratic leader has been faithfully propping up the Liberal regime for the past few years, I’d have to write him as a character who seeks to be the prime minister’s trusted and loyal sidekick: Robin to Trudeau’s Batman. Now, I get how in the real world playing such a role might make sense for Singh as he’s trying to use his position to wrest certain concessions from the Liberals. But for the purposes of my story, such a chummy, feel-good relationship between Singh and Trudeau doesn’t work, since a good drama requires conflict. Also, keep in mind, Trudeau and Singh are supposed to be political and ideological enemies, not bosom buddies. So, I guess I’d have to craft my election story to include a Game of Thrones-style plot twist where Singh, in a calculated gambit to seize power for himself, ultimately turns on his Liberal allies. That at least would add more depth to his character, making him a little more compelling and interesting. But would it be believable? Okay, let’s talk about the character of People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier, who’s running in a federal byelection in Manitoba. At one time, of course, Bernier’s character was clear-cut and straightforward; compared to the wishy-washy former Conservative leaders—Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole—he was the undisputed champion for Canada’s hard-core, libertarian-leaning populists. In other words, he was the conservative movement’s Don Quixote: a solitary, but spirited knight on an idealistic quest to slay Canada’s elitist dragons. However, once Poilievre—who also styles himself as an anti-woke, anti-elitist, true-blue-conservative— assumed the Conservative Party’s leadership, Bernier’s role became redundant. Indeed, leading a fringe party as he is, all Bernier can do at the end of the day is futilely tilt at Liberal windmills, while, by contrast, Poilievre has a real chance of winning power. I suppose, for the purposes of my story, I could write it so that Bernier accuses Poilievre of being too woke and too left-wing, but to do so would make him more of a preposterous, cardboard caricature than a well-rounded, credible character. Okay, this all might seem like a silly analysis, but the point I’m trying to make here is that to sell yourself in politics, you need a dramatic and compelling story to intrigue the media and voters. Trudeau and Poilievre have such a story. Singh and Bernier don’t. Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant. The Hill Times