←  Team Canada
A governance reading

The wave hit every
G7 democracy.
Two leaders beat it.

Across the developed world, voters are throwing out whoever is in charge. Two leaders are bucking the trend — and the reason is worth understanding no matter who you vote for.

The pattern

There is a wave rolling through every rich democracy right now, and it has one direction: out. Whoever holds power gets the blame for high prices, high rents, and a decade of feeling poorer.

Look at the G7. France's president governs with approval in the low teens. Britain's prime minister won a landslide in 2024 and watched his support collapse within months. Germany's leader is underwater. Italy's is net-negative. The United States is split down the middle. This is not about left or right — leaders of every stripe are getting hammered. The anger is bigger than any one party.

When voters feel poorer, they punish whoever holds the keys. Ideology comes second. The bill comes first.

Against that backdrop, two leaders stand out for the opposite reason. They are more popular than the wave should allow. One is in Japan. One is in Canada. They sit on opposite sides of the planet and opposite ends of the political spectrum. So why are they the exceptions?

The two exceptions

Both lead with strong public approval at a time when that is nearly impossible. Here is who they are and what they share.

🇯🇵
Sanae Takaichi
Japan · since 2025
~60%
approval, per major Japanese trackers
  • Ran on stability and a clear economic plan after years of drift.
  • Spoke directly to national pride and to people's wallets at the same time.
  • Delivered visible action fast, instead of asking for patience.
🇨🇦
Mark Carney
Canada · since 2025
~58%
approval, per major Canadian trackers
  • A career economist who took office during a tariff fight with the U.S.
  • Scrapped his own side's most unpopular policy when it stopped working.
  • Moved fast on the economy rather than defending the status quo.

Approval figures are drawn from major published polls in early-to-mid 2026 and move from week to week. Treat them as a range, not a scoreboard.

What they actually share

Strip away the flags and the politics and the same three habits show up in both. None of them belong to a party. Any government could copy them.

The method, in plain terms:

  1. They governed the real grievance — they didn't lecture it. When people are angry about the cost of living, these leaders treated that anger as information, not ignorance. They went and fixed the thing people were mad about.
  2. They dropped a losing position without ego. The fastest way to lose trust is to defend a policy everyone hates because you're attached to it. Both showed a willingness to change course when the evidence changed. Voters read that as strength, not weakness.
  3. They moved first and explained later. In a crisis, people want to see action before they want to hear a speech. Both delivered something visible early, which bought them the room to do the slower work.

That's it. It isn't magic and it isn't charisma. It's the oldest idea in good government: find out what is actually hurting people, and go fix it before you do anything else. The leaders drowning in the wave mostly did the opposite — they asked the public to be patient, defended unpopular calls, and explained why the anger was misplaced. The public did not reward it.

The honest caveat

Popularity is not the same as being right, and it never lasts on its own. Both of these leaders carry the same unfinished business that's sinking everyone else: housing people can afford, and groceries that don't climb every month. Polls in both countries show those exact two issues as the soft spot.

If the bigger crises ease and those everyday costs are still unsolved, the wave will come for them too. The method buys time and trust. It does not cancel the bill. That's the part worth remembering before anyone declares a winner.

Why this matters to us

We don't write this to cheer for a party. We write it because the lesson is useful to anyone who wants their government to work: serve the grievance, don't scold it. That's not left or right. That's just doing the job.

Good governance is not a team sport. When something works, we should be able to say so plainly — even when the person doing it isn't on our side. Especially then.