Political Monopoly: a Study of the Progressive Conservative Association in Rural Alberta 1971- 1996
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Political Monopoly: A study of the Progressive Conservative Association in rural Alberta 1971- 1996 Alfred Thomas Neitsch Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements of a PhD in Political Science School of Political Studies Faculty of Social Science University of Ottawa ©Alfred Thomas Neitsch, Ottawa, Canada, 2011 Abstract This dissertation argues that the Alberta Progressive Conservative organization constructed a rural political monopoly that facilitated a general provincial political monopoly. It will argue that rural Alberta was vital for the rise of the Progressive Conservatives and accounted for much of its success over the subsequent twenty-five years. The argument also challenges the theories of ‗responsible party government‘ that have traditionally explained the perpetuation of the quasi-party system and tradition of one-party dominance in Alberta. It argues that a more comparative approach, specifically the thesis of democratic quality, be integrated into this field of study. The employment of democratic quality biases and the consolidation of economic power in rural Alberta contributed heavily to Conservative political success between 1971 and 1996. Over this period, the Conservatives perpetuated a system of electoral malapportionment that overrepresented rural constituencies and underrepresented urban ridings. At the same time the Conservatives actively challenged independent rural/agrarian civil society organizations and any policy contrary to the party‘s political interests. Alberta‘s once considerable independent rural and agrarian lobby is today predominantly mediated by their position within or in relation to the Progressive Conservative Association. The decline of general farm organizations (GFOs) and agrarian civil society organizations, facilitated in part by government complicity and a changing agricultural economy, resulted in a ‗political monopoly‘ in rural areas. During this period malapportionment underpinned a general political monopoly with rural overrepresentation shoring up collapses of urban support (i.e. Edmonton) in the 1980s and 1990s. This work will provide evidence of participation, competition and other democratic quality biases through a construction of this theoretical framework in terms of a broader comparative perspective based on the evaluation of ‗democratic quality‘. ii This dissertation is dedicated to my maternal grandmother Sophie Gallagher. In addition, I would like to express gratitude to the agricultural producers and rural residents of Alberta past, present and future. iii Acknowledgements Immense gratitude must go to the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation for awarding me the Roger Soderstrom Memorial Scholarship. A great deal of gratitude must go towards my supervisor Dr. Caroline Andrew. I was able to get valuable feedback in record time and was given support to move back to Alberta to conduct field research and write the dissertation – not all would have been so kind and understanding. I would encourage anyone seeking a PhD in Canadian Political Science to seek her out as a supervisor. Dr. Julián Castro-Rea was kind enough to serve on my primary committee, despite not being at the University of Ottawa. I truly appreciated the sage advice given by this wonderful individual while I was researching and writing in Edmonton. The dissertation would not have progressed as smoothly as it did without his generosity of spirit. A very special thank you must go out to Margaret Shane who not only provided incredibly support throughout the PhD, but so kindly and rapidly copy-edited the dissertation! Thank you for fixing up my impatient writing! (Any mistakes in style or fact found remain my own). I am still in awe of the kindness shown by Dr. Jessica Trounstine (University of California Merced)! These efforts are still greatly appreciated! (Thanks must also go to Dr. Barbara Geddes who advised me to contact her). I appreciated the support given by Dr. Michael Orsini both as a member of my committee and as an instructor - I will fondly remember our office chats. Thanks must also be extended towards the external members of my committee Dr. Keith Archer and Dr. Michael Behiels. I must also recognize the great efforts of Dr. Kevin McMillan, who instructed me in methodology and was a great help in getting me motivated. I will also thank Dr. Cedric Jourde for encouraging me to think more comparatively. I would also like to thank Dr. Claude Denis. Special thanks to Carol Jaques whose interest in Unifarm provoked my own. I would also like to thank Dr. Edward Bell, Dr. Richard Connors, Dr. Roger Epp, Dr. Alvin Finkel, Dr. David Laycock, Simon Labbé St-Vincent, Dr. Frances Swyripa, Dr. Paul Voisey, and Kevin Wipf for their advice and support. I must also thank a number of friends. This includes Sandra Anderson, Jordan Birenbaum, Stefan Dale, Jenny Dyke, Kevin Kuchinski, Torrie Knoll, Erik Lizée, Don Lynass, Greg Morgan, Jean-Francois Ratelle, Joshua Zaato, and especially Dr. Edward Akuffo. Last, but certainly not least, was the encouragement and support of my family! iv Table of Contents Abstract..........ii Dedication..........iii Acknowledgements..........iv Table of Contents..........v Chapter One: Introduction..........1 Introduction..........1 Organization of Dissertation..........3 „Defining rural‟..........4 A Comparative turn to the study of Alberta politics..........5 The epistemological orientation of the study..........7 The Conservatives as a political monopoly..........11 The political monopoly, historical institutionalism and path dependency..........12 The Democratic Quality Framework Introduced..........14 Participation bias and the decline of agrarian civil society..........16 Bell‟s model for social movement efficacy..........21 Participation bias in conjunction with among other elements of democratic bias..........24 Competition bias: electoral malapportionment..........27 Measuring democratic participation and competition bias..........31 Measuring participation and other biases..........33 Measuring competition bias..........36 Conclusion..........39 Chapter Two: Literature Review..........41 Introduction..........41 The Canadian party literature..........42 Part One: Macpherson‟s Thesis..........45 Introducing Macpherson..........45 Macpherson‟s Critics..........47 Misconstruing Alberta‟s class structure..........48 Misinterpreting rural political support..........51 Re-examining quasi-colonial status..........52 Macpherson‟s Legacy..........53 Part Two: Structural Explanations..........54 The Modernity and Social Change Thesis..........54 Conservative Political Culture..........56 Part Three: Political Theories..........59 Strong/Weak Leadership Dichotomy..........59 The „Populist‟ argument..........63 Pinard Theory and Party Fragmentation..........64 Getting closer: Reinterpreting rural Alberta in the 1971 election..........65 Conclusion..........67 v Chapter Three: Agrarian and Rural Political Economics from the rise of the Progressive Conservatives to 1979..........69 Introduction..........69 Part One: The Rise of the Conservatives..........70 Alberta after 1947: as a whole neither universally wealthy nor modern..........70 The changing agricultural field and exogenous economic shocks..........71 Social Credit missteps..........73 Building a Conservative rural/agrarian platform..........77 The 1971 Election..........80 Victory! (With considerable rural support) ..........82 Provincial Agricultural Economics in the 1970s..........85 The contribution of agriculture to Alberta‟s economy in the 1970s..........86 Part Two: Consolidating a rural political network..........89 Fiscal Politics..........89 The Agricultural Development Corporation in the 1970s..........90 Provincial control over rural municipalities in the 1970s..........93 The allegiance with cattle producers in the 1970s..........97 Conclusion..........99 Chapter Four: Agrarian and Rural Political Economics from 1980 to 1996..........101 Introduction..........101 The continued importance of agriculture in the 1980s..........102 The provincial Agricultural economy and rural supports in the 1980s..........104 No effective political opposition..........111 Provincial control over rural municipalities in the 1980s..........113 The continued importance of agriculture in the 1990s..........117 The agricultural economy and rural supports to the mid-1990s..........120 The Betrayal of Rural Alberta..........125 Conclusion..........129 Chapter Five: The Grain Debates and the Alberta Grain Commission..........131 Introduction..........131 Origins and role of the Statutory Rates (“the Crow”) debate..........132 Origins and role of the Canadian Wheat Board..........134 A pursuit of democratic unresponsiveness and participation bias 1971-1979..........136 A pursuit of democratic unresponsiveness and participation bias 1980-1996..........150 Conclusion..........167 vi Chapter Six: Surface Rights, Land Use and the Farmers’ Advocate..........168 Introduction..........168 Overview of Surface Rights..........169 Surface Rights in the 1970s..........173 Implementing the election platform?..........173 The government‟s disingenuous public persona revealed..........180 The decline of Unifarm as a surface rights advocate..........187 The role of the Farmers‟ Advocate during the 1970s..........189 Surface Rights 1980-1996..........196 The fracturing Surface Rights movement..........196 Proposing changes to the Surface Rights Act..........198 The Lodgepole Blowout..........201