More from Tasha Kheiriddin available More fromavailable here

Calling the Liberal nomination process “open” is like saying someone is “a little bit pregnant” — a physical impossibility. There is no middle position, and no amount of rhetoric from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau can change that.

Trudeau recently told a group of Liberal candidates that “(O)pen nominations in our communities have allowed tens of thousands of Canadians to participate directly in contested nominations.”

Unfortunately, many are also not sticking around — disillusioned by a process that they see as rigged and leader-driven.

Two recent examples include the dust-up between David Bertschi and Andrew Leslie in Ottawa-Orleans, and the fracas between Harjit Singh Sajjan and Barj Dhahan in Vancouver South. At the Leslie nomination, supporters of the rival camps actually came to blows over the charge that the party had blocked former leadership rival Bertschi from running against the favoured Leslie — putatively over the issue of repayment of campaign debts, but more likely because Leslie is seen as the stronger candidate. Berstchi claimed this was “backroom, strong-arm politics” and issued a libel notice to the party, paving the way for a defamation lawsuit.

In Vancouver South, Dhahan’s supporters had equally harsh words for party brass and the leader. “The Liberal Party, especially Justin, is in bed with extremist and fundamental groups. That’s why I decided to leave the Liberal Party,” said Kashmir Dhaliwal, ex-president of the Khalsa Diwan Society, a Sikh society founded in 1902. Dhaliwal alleges the party has been “hijacked” by the World Sikh Organization, who favoured Sajjan, and claims that 4,000 members loyal to Dhahan will now tear up their cards.

How did it come to this? Open nominations were supposed to reinvigorate the Liberal party by reaching out to a greater pool of candidates and pruning deadwood from the ranks. But there were problems from the beginning — allegations that Trudeau loyalists and ‘star’ candidates were getting preferential treatment in terms of information and the setting of nomination dates, or were simply seeing their rivals declared ineligible to run.

Admitting that the leader of a political party wants to win at any cost doesn’t sound very democratic, inclusive, or any of the other things the Liberals want to appear to be. Still, that’s the reality — even if Trudeau doesn’t want to own up to it.

The high-profile race in Trinity Spadina, the seat of former NDP MP Olivia Chow, saw Trudeau openly favour star candidate Adam Vaughan while the party kiboshed the nomination papers of Christine Innes, who is now suing the party.

Lower-profile races such as Ville-Marie, Hamilton-West-Ancaster-Dundas and Brantford-Brant were tarred by resignations and accusations of dirty tricks. In Brantford-Brant, for example, the less-favoured candidates were informed by email that the registration deadline was only two hours away. Candidates are also appealing the results of nomination races in two recent races in New Brunswick. And with half their candidates yet to be nominated, more trouble is sure to follow.

While this is no doubt discouraging to the Liberals, one is tempted ask why anyone is surprised. The Liberals have never been a ‘grassroots’ type of party. That title belongs to the former Reform party and, to an extent, the current Conservatives — though they’re having a host of nomination troubles of their own.

The difference between the two parties, and between the Liberals and the NDP as well, can be best observed on the convention floor. Liberal gatherings are notable not for their obsession with democracy or policy, but for their focus on power. The last Liberal policy convention in Montreal was almost risible for its lack of debate: Delegates were probably too busy networking to care.

One of the key aspects of the Liberal party’s strength at the ballot box is its ability to come together around the question of power — shape-shifting to surround the electorate’s political center of gravity, wherever it happens to be at the time. At the candidate level, this translates into a need for electable candidates … process be damned.

It’s also natural for leaders in any party to want to surround themselves with loyalists. What better way to secure loyalty than by securing a nomination?

On top of this, all parties have become obsessed with weeding out bad apples — with good reason. They all know how toxic they can become if they’re left to ferment and explode. Think of Conservative candidate Randy “to heck with the courts” White in 2004. Think of Wild Rose candidate Allan “lake of fire” Hunsberger in 2012. Think of PQ candidate Pierre Karl “I want a country” Peladeau in the last Quebec election. (Maybe it’s better not to think about that last one.)

So why not be honest about it? Why claim openness where none exists? Probably because it sounds good. Admitting that the leader of a political party wants to win at any cost doesn’t sound very democratic, inclusive, or any of the other things the Liberals want to appear to be.

Still, that’s the reality — even if Trudeau doesn’t want to own up to it. Reminds me of a joke: How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. In her student days, Tasha was active in youth politics in her hometown of Montreal, eventually serving as national policy director and then president of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation of Canada. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.