With less than a year till the election, federal party leaders are working hard to refine their leadership styles. The differences between them are significant, which could make for a memorable campaign. But does anyone have a clear advantage? To attract voters, a leader's style must be anchored in a storyline that ordinary people can easily recognize and identify with. As Michael Den Tandt recently wrote, archetypes play a crucial role here. Archetypes are well-known character-types, often found in films, literature and myth. In politics, archetypes are used to frame the narrative around a leader. For example, Den Tandt thinks Justin Trudeau has successfully cast himself as “the Young Hero.” In myth, the Young Hero represents idealism, vitality and generational change. He embarks on a life-defining journey or quest, during which he is challenged and tested. Den Tandt cites Luke Skywalker as an exemplar and thinks the “Skywalker brand” has now been so well appropriated by Trudeau that it will define the campaign. The only question left, he says, is whether Trudeau can carry out his role convincingly.   While Den Tandt's piece is interesting, it is much too early to say that the election narrative has been set. Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair's leadership styles can hardly be discounted. They too are anchored in archetypes and surprises are not only possible, but likely. Still, some key things are becoming clear. Consider Mulcair. He has shown great skill as the Inquisitor—a fierce and brilliant prosecutor of the facts. Yet polls suggest the NDP may still lose seats. The public just hasn't warmed to Mulcair the way they did to Jack Layton. Why not? Ordinary people liked Layton because they felt they knew who he was and what he stood for. Like George Bailey from 'It's a Wonderful Life,' they believed Layton cared about them and was ready to stand up to the bullying, selfish Mr. Potters of the world on their behalf. By contrast, Mulcair's Inquisitor may be impressive and intelligent, but he is also inscrutable and intimidating. There is nothing folksy or populist about him. Elizabeth May is far more successful as a people's champion. As a result, while Canadians may tell pollsters they like Mulcair, they have been less willing to line up behind him. The question now is whether there is still time to convince them to take the plunge. If not, ironically, Layton may prove to be his most formidable rival, with May in the wings to remind us of why. Harper's story is more complicated. In his early days as prime minister, he was known as “the Chess Master,” a brilliant political strategist and a competent manager. After nearly a decade in office, however, another side has emerged. Even supporters now admit that he is controlling, politically ruthless and personally distant. However, international events have given Harper a chance to reinvent himself. In the last year, he has carved out a place on the world stage and set his sights on membership in a very exclusive club: The League of Great Men. Great Men have a mystique and gravitas that sets them apart from others. To win the election, Harper badly needs this status and, like Winston Churchill, he is seeking to acquire it by staring down dictators and terrorists. To his credit, so far he has performed skillfully. But as an election strategy, this is risky. He must take care not to become too closely identified with events in faraway places, such as Iraq or Syria, or even with the fight against terrorism. Greatness may be won on international issues, but elections are won on domestic ones. Even Churchill suffered defeat in 1945 when the UK turned its attention to rebuilding. But let's suppose Harper successfully redefines himself as a Great Man. Can a novice like Trudeau still defeat him? As an archetype, the Young Hero has a mystique and gravitas of its own. It is the symbol of generational change. As a result, Canadians may look to Harper for security and continuity, but they will turn to Trudeau for change and renewal. In the end, the election may turn on which of these two leaders can paint a more convincing picture of the future. Trudeau will talk about the need for sustainable development, investment in infrastructure and education, and concerns over opportunity and quality of life—and as the Young Hero, he can do so with a sincerity and idealism that Harper cannot match. Harper, in turn, will portray the future as a place of uncertainty and danger. He will use his new status as a statesman to argue that he is most qualified to manage a fragile economy and defend the country against the creeping threat of terrorism. But Trudeau has a leadership story of his own to tell. There is an international consensus on the need to adapt government for the digital era. Our prospects for the future, he will say, lie there. Success requires new forms of leadership and policymaking. In particular, it requires collaboration: with the provinces, industry and the not-for-profit sector—something Harper has been unwilling or unable to do. It also requires changes to government to make it more open, transparent and democratic. Here Trudeau can point to his decision on the Senate as evidence of his commitment to real institutional change. Harper is unlikely to quarrel with Trudeau's vision of leadership. It would be folly to oppose collaboration or more open government. But neither can he pretend to support them. His record speaks for itself. Instead, he will try to shift the focus back onto uncertainty about the future and insist that it calls for “strong and experienced leadership.” Which brings us to a final point. Harper is one of the most polarizing prime ministers in our history. Few would dispute that. But nothing in this plan to rejuvenate his image provides a reason to think that will change. “Strong and experienced leadership” thus really means “more of the same”—and that may be the thing that should worry Conservatives most. Nothing is more certain to defeat a government than when voters decide that it is time for a change. In the absence of a clear reason to believe that Harper's hard edge has been softened, voters may simply conclude that it is in their best interest to move on.   Editor's Note: Don Lenihan has been on leave since October. Starting today, his National Newswatch column will appear again weekly and will be informed by research and other activities in his new role at Canada 2020.     Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. His recent projects include chairing an expert group on citizen engagement for the UN and the OECD; and chairing the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan