The Three Horsemen of Manitoba Provincial Politics: Navigating the Shadows of Power

By Donovan Martin Sr, Editor in Chief

Manitoba provincial politics likes to present itself as restrained, pragmatic, and rooted in public service. But beneath that image, there are moments when ambition hardens into something far less principled. Over time, three figures have come to symbolize that darker edge of political life. Around the Legislature, they are often referred to quietly as the Three Horsemen.

What connects them is not ideology or party loyalty, but a shared belief that power justifies nearly any means used to obtain it.

The first Horseman understood early that relationships are only useful as long as they serve a purpose. Long-standing friendships, business ties, and even family connections became expendable once they interfered with political advancement. Loyalty was transactional. Trust was temporary. What makes this story more than a personal failing is that the strategy worked. This individual rose beyond caucus politics and into a ministerial role, gaining cabinet-level authority where decisions are no longer symbolic but consequential. At that level, power is not abstract. It is immediate, protected, and difficult to challenge.

The second Horseman took a more aggressive route. Rather than severing relationships, this figure focused on destroying opponents outright. Political disagreement was never enough. Personal lives were fair game. Families, workplaces, and reputations were pulled into the fight without hesitation. The goal was not debate or persuasion, but intimidation and erosion. If an opponent could be weakened publicly or privately, the damage was considered justified.

The third Horseman operated differently, and perhaps more effectively. This figure rarely acted directly. Instead, a network of surrogates and operatives handled the messier work — smear campaigns, online harassment, hateful rhetoric, and the quiet removal of election signs and campaign materials. Distance provided cover. Plausible deniability became a strategy. Like the first Horseman, this one also rose to the ministerial level, where cabinet authority offered both influence and insulation from scrutiny.

One of the Three Horsemen no longer walks the halls of the Manitoba Legislative Building. What matters is what their rise reveals. You can never underestimate what someone is willing to do to obtain power. And once power is secured at the cabinet table, it changes the equation entirely. Ministerial authority concentrates decision-making, limits oversight, and creates an environment where consequences are often delayed, diluted, or avoided altogether.

These are not isolated personalities or rare lapses. They reflect a broader vulnerability in Manitoba’s political system — one where ambition can quietly overpower accountability, and where success can be mistaken for legitimacy. The lesson is not about any single individual, but about how easily democratic safeguards can be tested when power becomes the goal rather than the responsibility.

If democracy is to function as intended, it requires more than elections and procedures. It demands vigilance. It demands transparency. And it demands a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about how power is pursued, used, and protected — especially when it reaches the highest levels of provincial government.