The Harper imprisonment is over.

That might seem like a weird thing to say, coming from someone like me — a former Conservative staffer. But it fits. And I’m not the only Conservative who thinks so.

Since he first became leader of the Canadian Alliance and then the new Conservative party, Stephen Harper insisted upon absolute caucus control and on absolutely getting his own way on every question. MPs who resisted this form of party discipline quickly discovered what life on the Parliamentary Library Committee was like.

Though this rigid caucus control began when the party was in opposition, it intensified when the Conservatives became the government and Harper was able to take a Prime Minister’s Office that was already too large and too powerful and make it even more so. The tyranny of the PMO and the way that Harper’s minions — kids who went straight from grad school to high-priced and high-handed positions as extensions of Harper’s will — harassed and bullied MPs and cabinet ministers was a familiar tale by the time Harper was into his third term. As MPs left — or were booted from caucus, bruised and panting for air — they showed everyone what caucus solidarity meant to Stephen Harper.

There was a moment during CTV’s election night coverage that beautifully encapsulated the Harper style. During an exchange with retiring Edmonton Conservative MP James Rajotte, veteran reporter Bob Fife referred to the “kids in short pants” who told the grownups what to say on Harper’s behalf. Rajotte responded like some police state victim who still feared being dragged from his bed in the middle of the night — insisting it was all about keeping MPs on side and keeping any notes of discord away from the media’s ears.

I felt a brief jab of nausea while hearing this; had Conservative MPs really come to think they had no responsibilities to their constituents, or to their own beliefs?

Now, Stephen Harper is gone — and the caucus voices he silenced will be heard again. That’s the thing about a hurricane: it causes destruction and chaos, but it also gives you a chance to rebuild things better and stronger than they were before. And that is what the Conservative Party of Canada needs to do now.

Harper didn’t lose the campaign in the last week, or at any single point in the last three months of the marathon campaign. He lost it when he ran a majority government without vision — a government with no reason for exercising power beyond power itself. Harper didn’t lose the campaign in the last week, or at any single point in the last three months of the marathon campaign. He lost it when he ran a majority government without vision — a government with no reason for exercising power beyond power itself.

Jenni Byrne, who managed the Conservatives’ campaign disaster, has done the decent thing and left the building. Before she ran the campaign onto the rocks, she was the one in charge of message discipline and ‘controlling’ the caucus. Believe me when I say that there were people in the party who were so weary of her management style that they were willing to suffer anything — even defeat — to get rid of her.

Byrne’s final e-mail to supporters on election day (which went out under the heading “That’s it”) was an impassioned plea — no, make that command — for Conservative voters to get off their behinds and prevent the unthinkable. It was another surreal moment in a surreal campaign.

A Conservative regeneration will require new talent — and new attitudes. Take democratic reform. There used to be some respect for the principle of democratic renewal in the old Reform Party — as Ed Broadbent (of all people) reminded me one night at a Parliament Hill reception. The Conservative party has lost its enthusiasm for populist initiatives and grassroots democracy. Its structure is elitist, centrist and — now — defeatist. The Harper Party was so focused on forcing the players to memorize the script that it forgot to let anyone else on the stage.

And the party has got to stop viewing the media as either a redundant distraction or a necessary evil. Harper consistently hired media handlers who not only had no media experience, they had no interest in talking to the media. The Harper non-communication machine always expected journalists to report straight propaganda — because it produced so much of it. Non-compliance on the part of the press corps was viewed as deliberate obstruction. God help you if you criticized Harper or the party from a conservative perspective — as I often did — because that was viewed as outright betrayal.

We already know who the probable leadership candidates are. Jason Kenney, Peter MacKay and John Baird are all very different individuals who are all talented in their own ways; they disagree on some of the core issues, which should stimulate constructive debate. Brad Wall and Lisa Raitt also would be excellent contenders. But we’re not going to get the leadership contest the Conservative party needs if the candidates abandon first principles and try to project their shiny new ‘progressive’ credentials; anyone who wants to do that might as well join the Liberals.

The key point for the next Conservative leader to remember is this: Stephen Harper didn’t lose because he was too conservative. He lost because he was too remote, too forbidding, too unwilling to engage, to inspire — to give people a reason to vote Conservative.

In fact, those who trace the roots of Harper’s defeat to the campaign itself may be missing the point. Harper didn’t lose the campaign in the last week, or at any single point in the last three months of the marathon campaign. He lost it when he ran a majority government without vision — a government with no reason for exercising power beyond power itself.

He lost it when he consistently failed to deliver a positive conservative message. We heard an awful lot from him about how feeble and unworthy his opponents were — but rarely anything that could inspire and energize Canadians. Such an approach to politics might work for a while (as it did in his case) but ultimately it leaves even supporters with little to believe in, to hope for.

The one question Harper never satisfactorily answered during the campaign is why he wanted to go on being prime minister. That should be the first question any aspiring party leader asks — and it should be a question that any successful leader knows how to answer.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But it is so very easy to forget.

David Krayden was raised on Vancouver Island and has written extensively on Western political issues over the years. He was a columnist for the Calgary Herald and host of Calgary’s Liberty Today radio program; more recently he worked as an editor for Sun News. Krayden was a public affairs officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force and spent almost a decade on Parliament Hill as a communications staffer. @DavidKrayden

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.