Deconstruction in Canadian Politics

Yesterday I mentioned how the preacher can deconstruct his/herself by leaving the word with the people. Leaders who deconstruct themselves are leaders who are constantly changing so as not to develop a significant following. I am not sure my worldview, which has a strong notion of authority, will allow such a neat deconstruction, though. After all, even the most staunch post-modernists still develop followings. Brian McLaren still gets a crowd.

I think one form deconstruction took in Canadian politics was the flip-flop of Peter Mackay after winning the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party a few years ago. Mackay promised not to merge the party with the Canadian Alliance and thereby won the support of Joe Clark. He quickly reneged this promise, however, and entered into talks with Stephen Harper. The parties were merged and a new Conservative Party of Canada was born. This is now the governing party of Canada. What Mackay did not do, however, was run for the leadership of the new Conservative Party. He stepped aside and allowed others to lead and vie for its direction and public face. It was in precisely this act of stepping aside that Mackay deconstructed himself. Of course, this situation is also tainted with the realism of politics, but I don't think postmodernism should mind this realism, especially in its rejection of idealism and utopias.