Loser's Consent

A refresher for those who need it

In the 2005 book Loser’s Consent, Christopher Anderson and co-authors observe that “if democratic procedures are to continue in the long run, then the losers must, somehow, overcome any bitterness and resentment and be willing, first, to accept the decision of the election and, second, to play again next time.”¹

Progressives in Alberta understand loser’s consent. They have the opportunity to practice it on a regular basis, once every four years.² Sure, there’s a bit of browsing of BC real estate listings, but after a few weeks everyone pulls themselves together and moves on.

Conservatives in Alberta haven’t had many opportunities to practice loser’s consent at the provincial level but, as they will hasten to remind me, they have had ample opportunity to practice it in federal politics. They don’t call the Liberals Canada’s “natural governing party” for nothing, after all!

The concept of loser’s consent normally refers to the losers of the actual contest. The losers signal their consent by conceding the election to their opponent and (ideally) wishing them well.

A peculiar manifestation of loser’s consent is the reaction of some Alberta conservatives to the election of successive federal Liberal governments. They are not the losers, formally, but they feel that the election of the Liberals is a defeat for their province.

We can look back to the Firewall Letter, in which Stephen Harper and several other conservative notables responded to the re-election of the Chrétien Liberals in 2001 with a call to build a policy firewall to protect Alberta from a federal government “tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power.” The policy agenda will sound familiar to contemporary Albertans: withdraw from the CPP, collect our own taxes, ditch the RCMP, and so on. To be fair to the authors, the letter does say that it is not in response to the outcome of the election, per se, but to the Liberals’ tactics of criticizing Alberta Premier Klein during the election. That nicety may have been lost along the way, however.

And then there was 2019, when the re-election of the Trudeau government inspired the Wexit movement.³ In the Fall of 2019, support for separation increased to just under 30%, according to data from the Viewpoint Alberta survey. Premier Jason Kenney created the Fair Deal Panel to let angry Albertans blow off some steam, and pretty quickly the separatist impulse passed.

As the national polls have swung wildly over the past several weeks, creating the prospect of a fourth Liberal term, I’ve been quietly worried about what the reaction in Alberta would be. It seems the same thoughts have occurred to Danielle Smith and Preston Manning. They’ve decided to get out in front of the issue, though, and give the rest of Canada a chance not to make the terrible mistake of thwarting Alberta’s wishes.

Smith has issued a list of demands (“plastic straws or we’re gone, Carney!”) and has let it be known that after the election, she will appoint the “What’s Next Panel”⁴ as some kind of a warm-up to a referendum, maybe. But only if people want it. (This approach might seem familiar to Alberta politics watchers. Sort of like sending Jim Dinning out to not answer questions about leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and doing some surveys, and then not holding a referendum.)

Preston Manning has now also entered the chat, claiming that not just Alberta but all of Western Canada is going to pack its bags and leave if the Eastern Bastards elect Mark Carney. He bases this assertion on polling from Pollara that finds that, when asked whether their province would be better off or worse off outside of Canada, 11% more Albertans say “worse off” than say “better off.” And in the rest of the West, the figure is 26% (BC) and 39% (MB/SK).⁵ In other words, even in Alberta more people think they are better off in Canada than outside it. How Manning interprets this as the basis for secession is a mystery to me. But maybe there’s an alternative scientific narrative.

On one hand, I’m tempted not to take these threats terribly seriously. The Wexit movement rose and fell. The plan to exit the Canada Pension Plan seems to have been shelved when it became clear the referendum would end in disaster. In all likelihood, the “What’s Next” panel will keep a segment of the population busy for several months and not result in a referendum on Alberta sovereignty.

On the other hand, this worries me. The authors of the Firewall letter planted a seed. They legitimized the idea that the appropriate response to a disappointing federal election outcome is to contemplate withdrawal. The idea took on more momentum in 2019. There is a great deal of pent-up frustration in Alberta, and Smith and Manning are actively trying to channel it into action that would distract the federal government from focusing on the profound economic and political threats the United States now poses.

And, unlike in 2019, Alberta separatists can expect to find support (moral, financial, and otherwise) from the White House. The prospect of leaving tariff-stricken Canada and joining the glorious Americans would hold appeal for some Albertans. We are, I fear, the weakest link in Confederation.

Assuming that Smith does not imagine herself as Governor of the 51st state, her demands and threats may be a negotiating stance. A credible threat of secession, in this view, strengthens Alberta’s hand to demand pipelines in all directions and an end to the scourge of un-Albertan paper straws.

Ironically, Trump’s actions have made the rest of Canada much more open to Smith’s policy agenda. They have opened what the public policy folks call “a policy window” - a set of events that create the possibility to gain acceptance for a policy. Instead of walking up to the window, Smith has decided to light the house on fire.

And that brings us back to loser’s consent. One of the great challenges of living in a democracy is accepting a loss. Threatening to leave because your favoured party did not win is anti-democratic, whether it’s done in advance of the election or in its aftermath. Albertans need to insist that their elected officials strengthen democracy by accepting the outcome of the election, whatever it is.

The second component of loser’s consent is being willing to play again next time. This underlines for us the beauty of Canada’s functioning democracy. There will be a next time. As the Americans are showing us, this is not something we should take for granted or abandon in a fit of pique.

1. Anderson, Christopher. Losers' consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 4. (I’m being careful to footnote. You never know when the National Post will take an interest!)

2. Except that one time, in 2015.

3. I vividly recall election night in 2019. I was at a practice for my community band. As I peeked at my phone to check the results, the guy sitting next to me (who was an MD, not an oil exec) saw them and then said, matter-of-factly “well, we’ll have to separate then.”

4. I was here first. Maybe I’ll appoint the “What Now?!?” Panel to make wry observations about the “What’s Next” Panel’s recommendations.

5. Yes, I know this is a terrible way to report these results. Their choice, not mine!