Welcome to the first in an installment of blog posts by LISPOP affiliates on different aspects of the Ontario provincial election. Our first post is by University of Waterloo political scientist Anna Esselment.
There are numerous aspects about elections that I love, but one that really intrigues me is how politicians are with people. By that I mean, do they seem at ease? Do they genuinely enjoy meeting and talking with voters? Do they feel like they can be themselves while in office and on the campaign trail? The latter question is particularly important because voters’ desire for “authentic” politicians is on the rise, and yet official representatives (both elected and those aspiring to be) operate in a relatively constrained, some might say inauthentic, space. In the Canadian context, as elsewhere, message discipline and staying on script is high demand by party leadership and political strategists. Authenticity gaps have magnified in Canadian politics as a result, with political parties and leaders’ offices treating candidates and parliamentarians primarily as party messengers, and not as individuals who might be able to communicate well for themselves without necessarily straying too far from the intended message. Being overmanaged, or overcoached, or asked to repeat party lines, undermines what has been identified as the core authenticity: originality, spontaneity, and trustworthiness. Saying what you think, or telling it like is, is valued by voters. A candidate who is “real” is perceived as someone you can trust; this gives them what is called an “authenticity advantage”.
The role of authenticity in electoral and representative politics is taking root as a meaningful and measurable variable that can help scholars understand political developments, such as the appeal of populists. Authenticity in politics is done better by some than others, and we’re finding that populist politicians do it best. Why? Because this sort of politician is the anti-type to what we’re used to. These guys grate against everything we’ve learned about disciplined, strategic communications. They are bombastic, they test and breach the norms of civility, they say things no other politician would ever dare say. But there is something relational about their politics – they connect with people (not all people, but a good number); they resonate with them. As Catherine Fieschi argues, their ”realness”, the way they “tell it like it is”, means they can get away with saying and doing all sorts of outlandish things because they are simply being their true selves. How can any voter hold that against them? Donald Trump’s populist appeal also demonstrated that authenticity is less about being honest than it is about being consistent. If you are consistently dishonest, voters assume that’s probably who you are, and they can decide whether to take it or leave it. In Trump’s case, many American voters decided to embrace it.
Of the leaders on offer in this provincial election, who might enjoy the advantage of authenticity? On the face of it, Doug Ford comes across as a guy who is probably the same at home as he is in the premier’s office or out on the hustings. He says what he thinks much of the time, and his folksy language, mea culpas, and the clear frustration with “price gougers” and “yahoos” during the peak of the pandemic likely endeared him to a number of voters. Liberal leader Steve Del Dulca talked candidly – without notes or a teleprompter to guide him – when announcing the party’s platform this week. NDP leader Andrea Horwath has been in enough elections to know that being genuine can build voter confidence.
But the thing is, authenticity can also be performed. If you can come across as real – your speech patterns, or appearing to think on the spot before answering a question, then the performance can be perceived as authentic; and in politics, perception is reality. Over the last week, Doug Ford’s campaign team has kept his communications rather scripted. He shows up for just one event a day, and only holds a ten minute media availability afterwards. In the Northern leaders’ debate, Ford occasionally came across as stiff and wooden, and seemed to read a few of his answers, but his “You didn’t build absolutely nothing!” retort to Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca is genuine Ford speak, and Ontarians know it.
This election I’ll be spending more time observing the leaders and their candidates. While there is little research about political authenticity in Canadian politics, we know a lot about message discipline, leader controlled communications, and the constraints placed on politicians from “just being themselves” in a permanent campaign era dominated by media immediacy. It matters that the desire for authentic politicians is on the rise, and seeing how that can be delivered, and by whom, adds an interesting layer to the cut and thrust of this provincial election.