Experiments in Co-Leadership in Canada.

• Author: Penner, Devin

Two political parties with elected members in Canadian parliaments have or appear to be in the process of adopting co-leadership models. Although the co-leadership option has become wellestablished among some parties in other countries, this type of structure is still somewhat of a novelty in Canada. In this article, the authors illuminate examples of co-leadership in international contexts, outline the pros and cons of this type of arrangement according to existing political science literature, and explore how co-leadership has worked or may work among its Canadian adherents. The authors conclude that while the co-leadership model has multiple democratic and practical benefits, leadership arrangements where there is centralization in a heroic leader have clear advantages in an era of brand-based politics and that it remains unlikely that parties in government or on the cusp of forming government will adopt this system in the near future.

**********

In today's era of market-oriented, brand-based politics, the leader is especially central to a party's election strategy. Campaigns often focus more on building a positive image for the leader than on developing innovative policy ideas, and party members are increasingly loyal to a particular leader instead of the party itself. What we have seen over the past few decades is the entrenchment of a "heroic" model of leadership in Canadian political parties. One potential problem with this idea of heroic leadership could be described as the romanticization of leadership. Decisions and achievements are associated with an individual leader, ignoring the many actors involved in developing and implementing a policy or initiating social change. (1) While leaders may be seen as solely responsible for achievements, the flipside is that they may be held solely responsible for mistakes as well. Failure is not tolerated, and people are quick to discard leaders who make mistakes. (2) What results is a version of party politics centred on the search for a new savior. The Conservative Party of Canada can certainly attest to this dynamic, holding three leadership contests in the five-year period from 2017 to 2022 to find someone who can defeat the Justin Trudeau-led Liberals. As well, within the trappings of the Westminster system, centralization of power in the leader's office is now seen to be inevitable; the ascension of a dominant leader is a certainty in the Canadian political system.

It seems hard to imagine an alternative to this heroic model of party leadership and the certain centralization of power. However, in recent years we can see the beginnings of one in Quebec solidaire's model of co-leadership, a model that also popped up in two recent team entries into the Green Party of Canada's leadership contest. In this brief article we examine these initial experiments in co-leadership in Canadian party politics and argue that co-leadership is worth considering as a way to renew party leadership and improve party democracy. Before examining the Quebec solidaire and Green Party cases, the following section provides a brief introduction to the concept of co-leadership.

What is Co-Leadership?

Co-leadership (a.k.a. dual leadership) simply means having two leaders instead of one. Alternatively, a party could have a leadership "triad" or "constellation." (3) Dividing leadership positions between more than one person seems like a simple change, but it introduces an important shift in orientation: leadership is seen as something formed in dynamic, interactive social processes, not as a quality possessed by individuals. (4) For this reason, co-leadership is a step in the direction of collective or shared leadership, broader terms that stress the blurring of the distinction between leader and follower and a less hierarchical conception of leadership interactions. The result is contrary to Canadian federal and provincial political cultures, which have historically been framed in very hierarchical terms.

Within the category of co-leadership, several further distinctions can be made. We can distinguish first between institutionalized co-leadership and ad hoc or informal forms of co-leadership such as a prime minister or party leader who has a close personal relationship with their deputy. (5) The focus of this article is on institutionalized forms because of the longer-term implications they have. Since Canada has a limited history of parties experimenting with co-leadership, we must look to other countries for models. Within the category of institutionalized co-leadership, we can think about two further questions:

Individual versus team elections? Co-leader elections can be structured so that each of the two leaders is elected individually (e.g. Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand), or they can be elected together as a team (e.g. German Social Democrats in 2019). If co-leaders are elected individually, there is a further question as to whether terms are staggered or if the two leaders are always elected at the same time. With regard to team candidacies, there is a further question as to whether solo candidates seeking to lead the party on their own are also allowed to run (e.g. Green Party of Canada 2022 leadership contest).

Representational quotas versus open elections? Co-leadership often (but not always) involves a gender quota to ensure women's representation (e.g. Quebec solidaire). Similarly, there could be ethnic or other quotas, or multiple overlapping quotas. For instance, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand requires that there is at least one female co-leader, and that there is at least one Maori co-leader. (6) While this is an example of representational quotas in individual co-leader elections, team elections could also have quota requirements. For instance, the 2019 German Social Democratic Party leadership contest allowed candidates to run on their own for solo leadership or as teams for co-leadership, but team entries had to have at least one female.

Which options are preferable will depend on the main reason for supporting co-leadership. Team elections are particularly valuable if the goal is to ensure complementarity and cohesiveness among the co-leaders. However, individual elections are better if the goal is to have two distinct leaders that represent different constituencies.

Why Co-Leadership? And Why Not ...

The Green Party of Canada and Quebec solidaire are both minor parties within their respective party systems. Neither party has yet to gamer seat totals which would have them on the cusp of forming government and require serious contemplation of how to fit co-leadership into a working legislative arrangement. For now, the...