Explaining Longevity and Decline: The Ontario Conservative Party 1934-1985

• In Event: New Perspectives on Parties and Partisanship

Abstract

After the May 1985 Ontario provincial election, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario found itself in an unusual position. The election results left the Conservatives with 52 of the legislature’s 126 seats. While the they would be able to form a minority government, the opposition Liberals and New Democrats had other plans. When the legislature resumed in June the Conservatives were defeated on a confidence vote over the Throne Speech. This ended the Progressive Conservative government which had been in office continually since August 1943.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative government was a political dynasty in a democratic political system. The party had elected six premiers and won twelve consecutive elections. This was a remarkable length of time for an elected government to hold office in a democratic Westminster parliamentary system -- only two other provincial governments in Canadian history have been in power longer. In an effort to explain the reasons for the Conservative defeat, pundits have focussed on the 1985 election and the parliamentary manoeuvring in the legislature. But they have not told the story of Conservative success or even attempted to explain the reasons which led to their defeat beyond the May 1985 election. While a number of factors helped the Conservatives remain in power – such as the single-member-plurality electoral system and a weak, fragmented opposition – little attention has been paid to the party, its organization, finance, and leadership.

The constitutional and legal arrangements in which the Progressive Conservatives operated were important determinants of its ability to win elections. But other factors played as significant, if not more significant, role in the party’s success. The party’s organization, leadership, and finance were key factors which allowed it to propose new policies, adopt technological and campaign innovations, and expand their electoral base. Without a strong party organization, leadership and sufficient financial resources the party could not have survived in government as long as it did. Leadership, organization, and finance played an important role in maintaining intra-party harmony and allowed the party leader and their advisors to adjust strategy and tactics in a competitive and changing political world. Simply put, the leadership managed to keep a focus on the collective goal of the electoral success and avoid the pitfalls of factional division.

Using archival material, interviews, media accounts (newspapers, magazines, radio transcripts), unpublished manuscripts, and secondary sources (books and academic journal articles) a case study of the Conservative party organization, leadership, and finance will be constructed using process tracing. Building on Weber’s, Panebianco’s, and Duverger’s focus on leadership, organization, finance, and the party in the electorate, the paper will “test” the hypothesis that as long as the Progressive Conservative party maintained a well financed, highly centralized party organization, controlled by the leader and a close group of advisors (both in and out of government) it was able to maintain its dominant position in Ontario political life. But by the mid-1980s the party faced demands for intra-party democratization, declining finances, factional infighting and an increasingly effective opposition. The lack of a routinized procedure for selecting a new leader and lax central control allowed factions to emerge which were based on ideology and personality. The lack of party unity weakened the Conservatives making them vulnerable to opposition attacks.

Hypothesis: The dominant party status of the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario provincial political life between 1943-1985 was the consequence of a strong central organization, leadership, and robust finances.

Hypothesis II: The inability to institutionalize leadership selection, maintain a strong central party organization and adapt to new political finance laws led to the rise of elite factions and party disunity.

Author

• Keith Douglas Brownsey, Mount Royal University