What lessons does the Ontario election have for the next federal election? A big one is about leadership and trust. The campaign was a contest between two classic leadership styles—hope and realism—and 2015 is shaping up as a replay.The day after the election, Tim Hudak's supporters were angry and confused. How could Ontarians hand a majority to the party that squandered a billion dollars on the gas plants, lied about it, and then proposed a platform that will bankrupt the province, they asked?Campaigns, of course, are at least as much about personalities as arguments or facts. And on this front, Kathleen Wynne turns out to be a remarkably good performer. When she speaks, she comes across as intelligent, open and honest. People see her as authentic and she capitalized on this in two important ways.First, she told Ontarians that she was not only sorry about the gas plants, but that the scandal had taken her on a personal journey and it changed her views on government. Wynne promised that, if elected, she would never let this happen again. Indeed, she promised to ensure it couldn't happen again by making her government the most open and transparent in the country.She thus combined these arguments with her charisma to transform the talk of scandal into a question about the kind of relationship Ontarians want with their premier and their government, which leads to the second point.Wynne replied to Hudak's economic pessimism with a message of hope. If Hudak's story was that a lot of pain is required before there can be prosperity, Wynne simply denied this. Instead, she asked people to believe that government and people can work together creatively to solve problems.So while Hudak cast himself as pragmatic, managerial and fiscally focused, Wynne positioned herself as the candidate of hope, openness and transparency—the person you can trust. And Ontarians obviously bought it.It's not hard to see why her opponents are confused and angry. To them, this was the ultimate con job. Fiscal reality will prevail, they say, and when it does Wynne will be exposed for the fraud she is. She will be forced to raise taxes, slash spending and cut jobs—and those who voted for her will see how foolish this was.I think this fails to understand the real reason many people voted for Wynne. They know that no one knows for sure how the economy will go or whether government revenues will rise or fall in the coming years. More importantly, they surely know that Wynne doesn't know this either. They are not simpletons. They did not vote for her because they think she has magical powers.In choosing Wynne, Ontarians were doing something Hudak never anticipated. They were recognizing that if the future is unknown, they have a choice about how to respond to it: they can be hopeful or not.Wynne offered them the chance to be hopeful and they took it. But not out of ignorance, naiveté or blind faith. Rather, it was an act of trust. If they bought into her claim that there is a better way, we mustn't forget that this was backed up by a commitment to openness and transparency. Practically speaking, this means that whatever happens, they will be in on it.I think this was the real pivot point in the campaign: People believed Wynne when she told them they would not be left in the dark or deceived and that gave them the confidence to be hopeful. Even if things go badly, they will hear about it and they can respond.The election was thus a powerful demonstration of people's desire for government they can trust; and for most people, this starts with openness and transparency. What does this mean for the 2015 election in Ottawa?We keep hearing from Conservatives that Canadians will vote with their wallet. They don't need to like their leader. They need to believe he is the most competent person to look after their financial interests. In 2015, Conservatives will ask Canadians to go with the devil they know and, all things being equal, they will do so.The Ontario election puts this strategy in question. It suggests that people's first choice is to vote for a leader they can trust and who gives them hope. This, in turn, is tied to openness and transparency. If so, the obvious question is whether any of the opposition leaders can repeat Wynne's strategy in 2015.Like Wynne, Justin Trudeau has charisma. People like him and they want to trust him. He has also taken some important steps in the direction of building trust through openness and transparency, such as the commitment to an arm's length process to propose senators; and this week's accountability bill, which would make openness the default position for government's management of information.Trudeau's fate is also closely linked to Wynne's. If she fails to fulfill the deal she has made with Ontarians, her popularity will be short-lived, and he too will suffer. On the other hand, if she meets expectations, there will be a halo effect and Trudeau will benefit.As for Thomas Mulcair, while he often talks about trust, he seems more focused on attacking the Harper government for its lack of openness than offering innovative ways to use it to build trust.Perhaps the Ontario election will serve as a wake-up call to all the parties that trust and openness are now closely linked in voters' minds. We'll see in 2015.Dr. Don Lenihan is an internationally recognized expert on democracy, public engagement, accountability and service delivery. Since 2009, he has been Senior Associate at Canada's Public Policy Forum in Ottawa. From October 2013 to April 2014, Don served as Chair of 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