When the head aches, all the members partake of the pain

Why Michael Ignatieff will have to give up the leadership of the Liberal Party.

Last night Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff seemed to know what needs to be done in the Party's best interests when he said: "I will play any part that the party wishes me to play as we go forward to rebuild, to renew, to reform the vital centre of Canadian politics. I will serve as long as the party wants to make me serve or asks me to serve and not a day longer."

While some Liberals debate just how long and under what circumstances that continuing service might be, the Leader is really boxed by the realities of process.  No doubt, more important is the question of moral authority, but over the years the Party has gradually moved to put in place some checks on the misguided reading of that authority.

The plain facts of it are that Mr. Ignatieff failed to win a seat and it will be four years before another one may open up.  He cannot lead the Party for long even as a medium term measure without a seat in the House of Commons and there is not one out of the 34 we've got that could or should be risked in a resignation-based by-election.  That would be blatantly contrary to the democratic will just expressed, in both the positive and negative senses.  In other words, there would be no moral authority to support either action.  Everyone likely agrees this is just not on.

So why couldn't he just wait a while to resign, say a year or so? This is where the process kicks in.

When the election was called the Party rescheduled its Biennial Convention originally scheduled for June to mid-December, on virtually the last date that the Constitution allows for the holding of said Convention. It has to be held within two calendar years of the last convention which was held in May of 2009, so December 2011 it is. 

The Constitution also says that at the first Convention following an election at which the Leader fails to become Prime Minister, an automatic review vote or "endorsement ballot" will be conducted.  All well and good one might say, he can hang in until that Convention and face the music there, perhaps bringing a plan for rebuilding the party to the party for discussion and ratification.  

Problem with that (and there are many more) is that the review vote is actually conducted well before the Convention - by all members at the delegate selection meetings held between about one and two months before the Convention itself, in other words in September and October.  Mr. Ignatieff will not win that vote and the Party should not be wasting its energies fighting a review battle or even simply going through the motions of conducting a review process at any rate when it needs to get on with rebuilding. 

Nonetheless, if he chose to option his right to that vote, and he loses it, a vacancy is created immediately. On the spot. A Leadership will have to be held by mid-June 2012 and an interim Leader chosen.  The ironic result of that? An ipso facto year-long Leadership battle in two stages.

The Liberal Party knows full well how harmful and  divisive lengthy (or endless) Leadership battles are.  That's one of the reasons Leadership votes must now be conducted within 6 months of a resignation or intention to resign.

The experience of the recent Leadership race that selected Christy Clarke as Leader of the BC Liberal Party (they have the same one-member-one vote process that their Federal cousins now have too) should be a positive lesson for Liberals.  Swift and surgical, with minimum bleeding.  In fact an amazing ability to bring in new blood.

The Party may be surprised at just how many Canadians are actually prepared to help rebuild the Party having participated in giving us the breathing room to do so.

So, the only logical route for Mr. Ignatieff and the Party to take is for him to announce his intention to resign when the Party chooses his successor.  The Party should then set the date for the Convention it must have this year for late October/ early November, and conduct its Leadership balloting over the same weekend, and the Party can give its new Leader a proper mandate.

"Many go out for wool, and come home shorn themselves".

I really don't get it.  I am usually the first in line to criticize my Party - and especially the Caucus purporting to decide/speak for the entire party all the time - for not consulting or at least finding some way to do a real values-oriented validation on the big policy directions of the day. (Not talking issues management here.)  I for one am getting pretty darned tired with the "You Propose, therefore I Oppose" modus of political debate in this country (well not just this country, but I digress).  Sounds silly, I know, but some issues are just too important for politics.  So one question for the LPC Caucus members and other Party members and pundits now vocally opposed to Leader Michael Ignatieff's position on assistance to Afghanistan but who (presumably) approved of the foreign policy program announced in June and fleshed out earlier this month:  If this were all happening for the first time today, what role is it exactly that you would propose Canada take on?  What role, given our historical outlook and historical strengths?
I'm not usually a betting gal, but I'd venture a wager on this one that the answer, from a military perspective would likely be along the lines of peacekeeping and training.  Particularly as we right now probably have the best, and freshest experience and expertise in the world to impart.
Where I will (must) agree, though is that the Canadian public is surely owed a public and open debate and discussion in the interests of public order and good government and in that vein, the Party is too. I guess what goes around, comes around.

I am warningly mindful though, as I often am, of Sir Edmund Burke's poignant commentary on representation: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

WWCS?

Michael Ignatieff meets with former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien today.  So many things to discuss! Quixotique would love to be a fly on that wall! But seriously, one should assume that the StatsCan imbroglio will be a hot subject for both.  It's well documented that Chrétien held many portfolios in his years in government before becoming Liberal Leader and Prime Minister and that each time he was offered a new department he would seek out and/or demand the most capable Deputy Minister be brought in or accompany him.  So his advice in this affair will be inavluable.  And given previous commentary, he knows something about facts and statistics.

So, What would Chretien say? Why it's obvious:

"A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

No statistician worth their salt would argue with that.

"Those who'll play with cats must expect to be scratched."

I'm getting very sick and tired of unelected, unaccountable people in the Liberal Party of Canada purporting to speak for me.  Just as tired as I am with the Party leadership refusing to discuss things with me. I'm not saying that every member of the Party isn't entitled to their own opinion and to express it - and I do think we shouldn't be shy of discussion, even difficult discussion - but I don't recall anyone (serious people!) being given a mandate by anyone, let alone the Party membership to go off and have serious discussions about anything. 

For those musing about dating, living together, shot-gun weddings and birthing babies I gotta say - you are missing the point.  It's the changing nature and role of political parties that we should be examining.  Shouldn't technically, parties have some semblance of being movements of political thought?  Shouldn't technically we govern ourselves in a manner indicative of  how we would govern the country? In an interview in the Hill Times about his new book, Power: Where is it?, Donald Savoie articulates my thoughts exactly.

"Part of the overall problem, as well, Prof. Savoie said, is that political parties "have lost their soul" and politics has been taken over by professional politicians. He said there was once a time when the core values of political parties never changed, but now, all parties are the products of their leaders and not based on public policy ideas and values for which Canadians can vote for.


"They've been captured by the election day, the need to organize around elections. They've been captured by cronies and lobbyists and in the process they've lost their soul," he said. "If you've lost your way, if you've lost your soul, you've lost what the party's all about, then personalism takes over. The Liberal Party of today is Michael Ignatieff's party, tomorrow it will be someone else's party. The Conservative party today is Stephen Harper's party. In a few years it will be someone else's party and the core values will not matter all that much."


Prof. Savoie noted that parties today have focused more on gaining power than about offering ideas, something that has been made easier by the MPs who come to Parliament with no experience in anything other than politics. "They're there to gain power without really spelling out what set of core values drives them to gain power. Power becomes an end in itself. The goal of the game is to secure political power so that your gang of lobbyists and your gang of cronies will do well," he said. "They don't bring a knowledge of other sectors to bear. They bring a knowledge of politics and they play politics. And it's not a process of ideas, it's a process of tactics.""

I hate to say it, but I think it so I may as well, but it is the embrace of this "process of tactics" by Leader Ignatieff and those who trained him that may now do him and if they have their way - ??  - our Party in. 
Concerned Party members should be writing and petitioning their elected (or acclaimed or appointed, because that's most likely what they've got) representatives from EDA Presidents on up to the top, requesting if not demanding an extraordinary meeting to have a big, long discussion about values, principles, ideas, programs, platforms and democracy and to consensually and democratically decide the path the Party should take in its quest to better serve the nation, not itself or its personalities.  We shouldn't be relegating our own responsibility to "party insiders".  We should be doing this work ourselves.
Otherwise, I'm not interested in joining the Kicking Ass Party.  If the smartest people in the room think that's the way to go, fine.  I'll go my own way.  The way of the increasing hoards of people who just don't vote, because if you don't know what you're voting for, how the heck can you know why you should.

"Plain as the nose on a man's face."

Or is it?  Avid readers (sic) of Tilting at Windmills will know that the blog found its genesis mostly in the post-2008-election discussions about minorities, coalitions and such. To be more precise: minority governments, coalition governments, and such. There is lots and lots of evidence to this effect if anyone has the stamina to peruse the archives (I suggest copious quantities of caffeine prior to the attempt).


Liberal friend Rob Silver tweeted yesterday something to the effect that the word "coalition" has come (rather quickly, I add) to have at least 6 different meanings. Somehow, over the past little while, the word (and concept of) "coalition" in the political context has become synonymous with "collaboration", "merger", "cooperation", "discussion", "arrangements", and "accords", to name a few (I'm kind of chuffed that I actually came up with six!).

This morning I was tagged in an earnest Facebook note by another Liberal friend, whom I am sure, means the best and cares deeply about his party, its electoral prospects, its Leader and so on, basically the whole nine yards, but was riddled with confusion about just what people are, and likely should, be discussing.  And then I read a piece by David Mader (Tory alert!) in The Mark, which I have come to enjoy, largely because the pieces are just out there and no one, other than the commenters editorializes much.  On the other hand they don't correct the record either.

Just look at what Mader says in the first paragraph: 

The partisan reaction to whispers of a Liberal-NDP coalition, or even a formal merger, has been predictably predictable. Hopes of such an arrangement revived when the British Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties recently entered into a formal coalition, and Liberal MP Bob Rae – himself a former NDP premier of Ontario – further fanned the flames with his reminiscences of the 1985 Liberal-NDP coalition in that province. When the president of the Young Liberals of Canada added his voice to those calling for a proper coalition, pointing to a poll that suggested such a coalition would be at least competitive with the Harper Tories, an air of momentum seemed to develop.

 So he links "whispers" of a coalition (keep in mind my bolded word/clarification, government) to a "merger", incorrectly calls the Ontario Liberal/NDP accord of 1985 a coalition, and states that YLC President Sam Lavoie called for a "proper coalition". Frankly, Lavoie did no such thing.  Lavoie called for discussions on collaboration and cooperation in a pre-electoral context, hinting, but never stating that those could/might eventually to some sort of merger and most certainly not a coalition government.

For my part, I've become a tad (not a lot, but a tad) concerned that any little interventions I may have made are being viewed in this state of collective confusion.  So allow me to, er, um, clarify.

I would like my party to discuss and recognize the democratic nature of the possibility of a coalition government, in Canada, given our Westminster-styled parliamentary democracy.  I would like recognition that given an agreed upon set of circumstances that such an outcome - after an election - would be a legitimate consideration. (Aside -  I am not personally interested in pursuing other pre-electoral collaborative arrangements, unless I see that we have drifted so far from Liberal principles that a new movement might be palatable, but I surely see the need for my Party to not be afraid to sit in a room and discuss it).

I'm tired of this concept being demonized by PM Harper and his hoards, and sorry to say, by our Leader as well.  I do not think that his categorical statements reflect the nature of our democracy very well.  In constantly referring to "the" coalition, which I take to mean the attempt in 2008 by Messrs Dion and Layton, as opposed to "a potential coalition government", the Party falls into the same trap as M. Dion did back then.

It's rather obvious that a coalition government can only be entered into after an election given that pollsters aside, no one really has a crystal ball that can confirm what the final outcome will be.  I am in the camp that says there should be some conditions to legitimize the option should it come to that.  For me, a most important condition includes the fact that the possibility should be contemplated by the electorate, so that it can take it into consideration as it deliberates about its reasons for voting the way it does.  This is done in most European elections (where I might add the longevity, therefore stability of most governments is in excess of three years regardless of majority, minority or coalition status) and was most recently witnessed in the general elections in Germany and the UK.

This, for me, and for many academics and practitioners is the main reason I view the Dion/Layton attempt as, how to put this politely: not terribly legitimate.  That's because, during the 2008 election, M. Dion (and I believe Mr. Layton too - I'm just too lazy to search out a reference) categorically ruled out considering it.  In fact he used identical wording to current Leader Michael Ignatieff, just days ago: "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal Government. We aren't interested in coalitions."

I don't think this is in keeping with democratic principles and I don't think it is particularly wise, and, I do not think that it serves Canadians very well. 

“It is good to live and learn.”

I was intrigued by the advice that Chantal Hébert had for the Liberal Party late last week, in the middle of a series of polls showing the Conservatives generally trending up and in particular widening a gap in seat-rich Ontario.  Hébert suggests that Liberals would be wise to embrace electoral reform as a national party-building survival mechanism. :)

In answer to a question on this at a townhall in March of 2009, then interim Leader Michael Ignatieff was cool to the idea, saying that he was “not yet convinced” on PR, preferring the stability provided by our current system and that he wouldn’t want to “turn this place into Italy”. (Go to about 8:45 of this clip.)

One of the first jobs I had at the Liberal Party Secretariat in the mid-80’s was in the Organization Department. I developed a predictive polling model for the Party.  It was the early days of “desktop” computing.  I had a tower the size of a small car, and a screen the size of a CD.  We ran an operating system and stored data on floppy disks the size of an iPad.  I personally inputted the results for 282 ridings into a Lotus spreadsheet, because of course, Elections Canada did not provide (or even record as far was we knew) the results in electronic format.  We had to refer to the blue books.  Because the Party could not afford a “pollster of record” at the time, I used data from public opinion polls published in the newspapers.

Taking into account a lot of provisos, my little model proved surprisingly accurate for the ’88 and ’93 general elections, including the prediction of a clean sweep in Ontario in ‘93 – which even the Party mucky mucks at the time, could barely believe.

Prevailing wisdom at the time was that with three competitive parties, 42/43% would get you a majority given the first past the post system.  With four competitive parties, things begin to change.  So it was in 1993 when with 53% of the vote in Ontario (a true majority rare in Canadian politics) the Liberals captured 98 out of 99 seats,and with them one-third of the available seats in the country - period.  The one other seat went to, wait for it, Reform, which captured 20% of the vote in Ontario; the PC’s were at 17.6% and the NDP at 6%.  (Change some party names and you start to see the similarities to today.)

Flash forward to last week’s series of voter intention polls and the trends they project for Ontario, par example and Hébert’s words of advice become even more poignant.  

Seat predictor site ThreeHundredEight.com, takes the Harris/Decima’s 5-point gap in Ontario and turns it into a 13- seat gap (CPC: 39% = 54 seats; LPC: 34% = 41 seats) and EKOS’s 8-point gap into a 20-seat gap, (CPC: 39% = 56 seats; LPC: 31%= 36 seats). With Friday’s Leger Marketing poll result showing a 14-point gap in Ontario (CPC: 42%; LPC: 28), it doesn’t take much arithmetic genius to imagine the devastating result.

Convinced yet?

"Time ripens all things. No man is born wise."

Focus, people, focus!  I must admit, I am scratching my head a bit at this, this, this, and this. Do a search of today's media - main and social - and you will find many more opinions and pontifications on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's very public, deliberate and obviously controversial comments about the selection of our next/current Governor General.   Just when I thought we were starting to push a few hot buttons and connect the dots on the theme of Harper's Juntaesque tendencies (we're gonna smoke 'em out), towards democracy and human rights we make the oddest, rather indiscreet, intervention.  Why even the crazed musings of an obviously conflicted and confused Conservative Senatrice, which fairly nicely make this point all on their own, get overshadowed by this unnecessary distraction.  Please, can we focus on what really matters? Can we just stick with our own the program?

"Never look for birds of this year in the nests of the last."

So the hot topic these days is the Harper "attack ads"; most observers and pundits commenting on the veracity of the ads themselves, i.e. is their content truthful and honest?, as opposed to the veracity of the strategy behind them, i.e. as one element in a political strategy are they a truthful and honest tactic?

What they are, most definitely are an attempt by Harper to re-employ a strategy that he perceives to have worked in the past. Unfortunately for the voting (or non-voting) public that "successful" strategy was one launched against democracy in Canada, not against a political opponent, be that an individual or an organization. It was a crass strategy targeting the voter as a consumer. His means to his end (obviously winning the last election) was not the presentation of a positive platform or vision of the country, not even wanting to govern for some reason, or with some purpose than simply being the smartest strategist in the free world; it was winning through control, containment and manipulation.

Straight from the (Karl) Rovian playbook, itself originally based on the successful William McKinley campaign of 1896, which applied business principles to politics for the first time, Harper embarked on a strategy of winning through voter suppression. Rove's own underlying strategy in the (Bush) Texas gubernatorial contest of 1994 of segmentation and balancing persuasion with motivation, had morphed by 2000 and the Presidential contest of Bush/Gore to segmentation and balancing motivation with anti-motivation. "Business principles" became honed to "marketing principles".

In the 2006-2008 period, Harper employed his Rovian techniques mercilessly: segment the "market"; treat voters as consumers of a product; define the other product as unpalatable to certain consumers; flood the market with specialized appeals to your own loyal consumers; and, don't worry about, and in fact encourage, consumers who don't like your product either, to simply go without. There is no other explanation for the conduct of Harper's cabinet and caucus in the last Parliament; they simply didn't care how many voters were turned off period, as long as their "core" remained motivated; having the rest anti-motivated was simply according to plan.

The "success" of the strategy is borne out by the disastrous turnout figures of the 2008 election. Out of the slightly more than 1,000,000 voters in 2006 who did not vote in 2008, more than 75% of those - close to 850,000 - were formerly Liberal voters. Canadian politics had reached the acme of anti-motivation. Voting motivation and democratic principles suppressed.

Michael Ignatieff wants to "do politics differently" (and I think he's made a decent start at it) and believes that voters want politics done differently too. I agree that many might, but that many more have already slipped into ambivalence, and in order to stop the slide, politics will have to be done very differently indeed. If we can present our party as about caring more about Canada and our flailing democracy, than about the Party itself, the contrast will be compelling. But it's a very tall order: complex and time-consuming (and admittedly rather academic), and (sigh) one that will pragmatically have to be thinned somewhat by the true realities of politics.

But as the old adage attests: "charity begins at home". In marketing circles there is a difference between marketing products and marketing organizations and ideas. A product doesn't really have a "relationship" with it's audience, but an organization does. Brand management is about customers; relationship management is about reputation. The electorate is not inured to the Liberal Party's own deportment in the past, otherwise Harperovian strategies and tactics wouldn't work as well as they have. They come by much of their cynicism honestly. But we can begin by letting voters know that we don't simple view them as consumers of a political "product". That we are not simply marketers, but developers, innovators and public-service-providers. Proceedings in Parliament and conduct in between and during election campaigns will be indicative.

Let's turn the Harperovian strategy on it's head. Not voter suppression; but voter expression.

"Fair and softly goes far. "

This is the best letter to the editor I've read in a long time.

"Michel Facon

One key to understanding the attack ads against Michael Ignatieff is the accusation that he is ''sure of himself.'' This shows that the Conservatives are lacking in self-confidence and identify themselves as uneducated, uncultured, inferior provincials.

The mere description of the anti-Ignatieff ads produced by the Tories has led me to an action that I have considered but never done. I am joining the Liberal Party of Canada."

Thanks, Stephen Harper, for helping to grow the Liberal movement. Keep it up.

"A word to the wise is enough. "

In a strange twist, change recommendations proposed by the Change Commission may have received more support from our Leader Michael Ignatieff (ILMI no more!) and our new National Executive than from the representatives of the "grassroots" assembled as delegates to the weekend convention and contributors to the report. It's not that they don't or wouldn't necessarily support the report and recommendations, it's just that the report didn't get much exposure at Convention, other than amongst the Party leadership, who apparently nonetheless see the writing on the wall that the membership will be ignored at peril.

The blunt, well written and representative report was released with little fanfare just days - hours, really - before delegates began arriving in Vancouver for the Convention about ... hmmm, well, 'nuf said.

Council of Presidents, which was held Thursday before the official convention began was not formally briefed on the report and its recommendations, although outgoing Party President Doug Ferguson, also a Commissioner did use his remarks to speak about the report and his comments were very well received. Unfortunately the room was not full of many riding presidents - some not having yet arrived, and others representing their presidents who were not attending. Workshops held later that day on the report, were sparsely attended by riding presidents/designates (mostly because there were several competing workshops and one could not be everywhere at once), but again the report and its recommendations were enthusiastically received by those who were able.

Our printed Convention agendas told us that the Change Commission Report would be first up at the morning session of the Constitutional Plenary, but alas that presentation and discussion never occurred. The presentation was apparently switched to the afternoon to allow for the important debate on WOMOV and other amendments to occur first, and then only "time permitting". Needless to say, it never happened, and there was concern in certain circles that some "deep sixing" might be underway.

But apparently not. The Leader is reported to be very supportive of the report and its recommendations, and incoming President Alf Apps enthusiastically so. Apparently Apps held an extensive NE meeting following the close of the convention (as opposed to the traditional meet and greet) where the report was discussed, approved in principle and set on a course for implementation and monitoring. That is very good news.

So good on the former Leader and Executive for commissioning the work. Good on the Commissioners for the valuable work they performed on our behalf. Good on the members who participated and who clearly saw themselves and their opinions reflected in the report, and good on the Leader and the new Executive for moving forward with the recommendations.

As Quixotique stated in this space just before the Convention, the most important recommendations about change in the report - perhaps really the entire report - are about membership engagement at various levels and activities through out the party: policy development; party processes such as nominations; adherence to the LPC Constitution and provisions as a recognition that they represent the will of the membership; and, accountability mechanisms.

Too bad really that we moved ahead before the Convention and the report however, with mechanisms such as incumbency protection and unvetted appointments; but with any luck, such things are about to change.

"I must follow him through thick and thin."

So says conventional (pun intended) political party leader wisdom. Or does it? I simply can't believe I missed this: Advice for Michael Ignatieff. And that seemingly so did every other Liberal, Con, progressive blogger or pundit in Canada. Other than the comments at theglobeamdmail.com, I can't find anyone that has commented on this. Sort of speaks to what Bourque (J. C. not the Bourque you're thinking of!) (and Dalton Camp posthumously) is trying to tell us eh?

What this online article (and from Quixotique's POV, from a non-partisan, more academic POV) is talking about is the the relationship between Leader and Party; what it is, what it was meant to be and just how far parties, in this instance the Liberal Party, have moved away from the sense of parties as associations of "like-mindeds", who work collaboratively for the betterment of the Party and one would hope the country. Bourque, who obviously stems from the old Progressive Conservative tradition, provides not his advice to ILMI, but that of Dalton Camp, political organizer, strategist and ad man extradordinaire from the days when partisan politics, seemed well somehow less partisan and more gentlemanly than what we see today, at minimum when most had a better sense of "party" than I would venture we do now. Bourque's piece uses excerpts from a speech by Camp in 1966, who was PC Party President at the time, and who in challenging the leadership of (former Prime Minister) John Diefenbaker while championing the interests of the party, was said by many to have forced a situation where for the first time in Canada's history a party leader was held accountable by the grassroots, bringing democracy one step further. Camp's interventions on behalf of his party brought about the first, and since entrenched concept of "Leadership Review". Bourque uses this famous incident to "remind Mr. Ignatieff of his role, responsibilities and purpose, and the hues of legitimacy he has".

I think it is wise reading, particularly for a newly minted leader of a Canadian political party, especially one who by all accounts, likes to listen, and learn. I hope ILMI and his peeps read this. I really, really do. Not that the IL deserves bashing - it's simply too early to tell - but advice in the form of warnings: Stay on your toes! Remember who got you here (oops that one doesn't quite work, oh well)! The Party is paramount - it is what will get you there, not the other way around!

I love the headers that that Bourque has interspersed with (very) key messages from Camp's speech. My favourites are: The party should not be coerced, but led; The leader is responsible to the party; and, especially, Leaders have a responsibility to represent the party's ideals more so than winning at all costs. Heck I pretty much like them all.

Reprinting that part of the article below. Which ones do you like?

1. The leader is responsible to the party

"Leaders are fond of reminding followers of their responsibilities and duties to leadership...What is seldom heard, however, is a statement on the responsibilities of the leader to those he leads. Leaders are fond of saying how arduous their labour, how complex the circumstances and how unfair the press criticism, as though they have been called to their high office by some supreme power rather than those they are addressing."

2. The party must be prepared to guide the leader

"A party willingly submits to the leader's power. In the relationship between the leader and the led, there is a mutuality of interest and, as well, a continuing common experience of discovery, learning and revelation. Where the leader does not know the limits to his power, he must be taught, and when he is indifferent to the interest of his party, he must be reminded."

3. The party is permanent

"The party is not the embodiment of the leader, but rather the other way round; the leader is transient, the Party permanent."

4. The party should not be coerced, but led

"Mackenzie King once said the Canadian nation was built upon the spirit of reconciliation, meaning, of course, the reconciling of diverse interest, race, and outlook. A Canadian political party can be no different. Men who lead cannot demand adherence, they may only be given it, and this is the gift of those who are reconciled in some greater and more impersonal cause, which is the party's role and place in the nation."

5. A good leader allows for internal debate

"The argument is made that to question at any time, or in any matter, the acts of leaders will invoke a grave question of non-confidence. This is an argument for sheep, not for men. Men are not required to act in perfect harmony and concert, or to dwell in docile agreement, in order to belong to political parties... since silence is always taken for consent, why then should those who do not consent be silenced by the irrelevant question of non-confidence?"

6. Leaders have a responsibility to represent the party's ideals more so than winning at all cost

"It is assumed by some that leaders have a responsibility to win elections, or at least command a good portion of public opinion and the matter ends there. If this were true, then the party system is a deadly waste of time and enterprise and we would do better to recruit leaders through the classified pages or by public opinion polls. But, of course we do not; leaders are chosen by their parties, through the admittedly imperfect system of the convention, a process which produces a willing leader and a party's willingness to support him. It is not, as every politician knows, a lifetime contract."

7. Toadyism should not be mistaken for loyalty to the party

"Again, the leader should be given as much loyalty to his followers as he demands from them. This is not a personal loyalty, but rather loyalty to the party, to its continuing strength, best interest and well-being. This must be shared by leader and followers alike, if unity and harmony are to be enjoyed by both. While it is natural that a leader will gather about him a number of like-minded men and women, if their like-mindedness is chiefly that of loyalty to the leader then the party system ceases to function and politics becomes a matter of subservience rather than service, and of personality rather than purpose."

8. The limits to leadership

"The limits of the powers of leadership cannot be precisely determined, but they are far short of absolute, less than arbitrary, and subject to the reasoned second thoughts of others of responsibility and influence in the Party. The powers appear total only to those who confuse subservience with loyalty."

9. The responsibility of speaking truth to power

"There is a political fable regarding a supporter who tells his leader he supports his policy because he agrees it is right. And the leader remarks that he does not need his support when right, but requires it when he is wrong. Such a philosophy, in practice, reduces politics to an absurdity, converts supporters into hacks, and leaders into tyrants."

Up next in this vein: incumbency protection.

"But man appoints, and God disappoints."

"'Hark you, goodman Slander', replied Sancho, 'it is now eight or ten days since I began to govern the island that was given me, and in all that time, I never had my belly full but once; physicians have persecuted me, enemies have trampled over me, and bruised my bones, and I have had neither leisure to take bribes, nor to receive my just dues. Now, all this considered, in my opinion I did not deserve to come out in this fashion. But man appoints, and God disappoints. Heaven knows what is best for us all. We must take time as it comes, and our lot as it falls. Let no man say, I will drink no more of this water. Many count their chickens before they are hatched, and where they expect bacon meet with broken bones. Heaven knows my mind, and I say no more though I might.' "

And so, as unofficial (you mean 'interim', surely, ed) becomes more official, others, in addition to Quixotique, question the fact that it didn't have to be this way. We could have simply followed "all the constitutional procedures of the party" and let the membership exercise their constitutional authority to legitimize, ratify - okay call a spade a spade - appoint the Leader. And instead we disappoint and leave ILMI to take his lot as it falls.

At the same time, the crafty old dragon-slayer himself, PMSH, polishes his rusty old regimen of governing-by-taunt, knowing that the interim supply measures will be voted on before ILMI's official transition from unofficial to official. Some call for ILMI to call PMSH's bluff. And while this is going on, yet others, including Liberals, are questioning ILMI's policy-pronouncements mere weeks away from a convention that might just, or might just not, ratify those as well.

Well, well, well, isn't timing everything? If ILMI and the party apparatchik were really that serious about having legitimate and authorized opportunities to call bluffs, ameliorate parliamentary legislation, legitimize new policy directions and perhaps even defeat the government and head in to an election with some measure of party-wide backing - without using the upcoming convention as some sort of imaginary deadline for the launch of the "New Ignatieff Party", they would let the DEMs go ahead including the universal membership vote. Instead, members in 30 ridings (less than 10%) across the country will get their say, while the rest of us delegate our opinions and decisions to "delegates" we have not had a chance to delegate anything to, let alone our say on Leadership. After all, it's only one week away, almost two months before the Convention, leaving more than enough time for the receiving of just dues.

"You cannot eat your cake and have your cake."

When is a Leader not a Leader? When they're an interim Leader! Or, (perhaps and) when they have not been elected in accordance with the LPC Constitution.

ILMI seems to get that it is important for his leadership to be "ratified" by the "rank and file" as well as the importance of adhering to "all the constitutional procedures for the party", but I'm not sure that he gets (or knows?) that the Party is about to do neither. Not sure that delegates to a convention (elected, selected or ex-officio) are really the rank and file; the people who elect them, however, would be. Not sure either that the decision-makers really get that they are likely doing the ISTBLLMI (Interim Soon to be Legitimate Leader) no favours in once again bending the process for practical, not principled reasons, and expediency.

The Party will be allowing EDA's to not hold Delegate Election Meetings for the upcoming Vancouver (Leadership) Convention, if the number of "delegate candidates" applying to be (elected as) delegates is less than the maximum number per EDA (22). This is apparently being authorized so that EDA's, Clubs and PTA's can avoid the expense and administrative hassles of holding meetings, when they otherwise wouldn't be necessary, as the delegates they claim, would simply be "acclaimed" in such an instance. Problem is that pretty much negates the universal (or OMOV) vote aspect of the leadership selection process currently envisaged by the constitution and nullifies the desire of ILMI to have his leadership ratified by the rank and file.

To Quixotique at least, the Constitution seems, while certainly not always, pretty clear in this instance.

Article 53:

Whenever a Leader is to be chosen for the Party, the Party must elect a new Leader according to the procedures set out in this Chapter (which is referred to in this Constitution as a "Leadership Vote").

Article 56:

(1) The Leader is elected at a National Leadership Convention with the delegates to that convention being elected in proportion to the popular direct vote received by each leadership contestant in accordance with this Constitution and the Party bylaws. ...

(2) At a delegate selection meeting to select delegates to a National Leadership Convention held in accordance with Section 63, each member of the Party who is entitled to vote at the meeting must be provided with a ballot that permits him or her both to vote directly for the leadership contestant of his or her choice and to vote for individual delegates...

Seems pretty obvious to me. What also seems obvious to me is that the Party (grassroots, rank and file, or er, um, duh - the membership), if given the opportunity to have their direct say as the Constitution provides, would likely do so in an overwhelmingly positive fashion for Mr. Ignatieff.

What better ratification, legitimization or whatever you want to call it, could you hope for than that? How much more membership engagement could you get than that? How much more personal investment in your leadership could you get than that? Pretty easy to accomplish all of your goals at once - and turn a perceived minority leadership into a majority one to boot.

Instead we are poised to de-legitimize an already illegitimate process even more. Again. And doing the new boss a huge disservice in the process.

"When thou art at Rome, do as they do at Rome."

Susan Riley, in yesterday's Citizen, more than adequately expresses Quixotique's crushed hopes of politics being done differently in this country, in this party, at this time.

"The dated, top-down, paternalistic management style embraced by our major parties -- an approach long-since abandoned by most intelligent organizations -- would appear to be under no immediate threat. .

Challenging the rigid rituals of politics-as-usual would embellish, rather than threaten, Ignatieff's image. Allowing MPs more flexibility on future votes, for instance, would be a true test of leadership -- of the listening and diplomatic skills Ignatieff possesses in abundance. Every case is different; every crisis has a context. ...

But Ignatieff will likely be a disappointment for anyone looking for a new kind of politics. He respects tradition. He plays by the old rules. He claims, lamely, that his job as opposition leader is only to oppose, not propose. ..."

Others see more promise in ILMI's tentative step forward to a more democratic and representative outlook.

Editorialists at the Gazette, find ILMI's actions on the budget vote in the best of Burkean Liberal traditions with respect to the relationship and the balance required between representatives and the respresented, arguing that a relaxation of party discipline, if for the right reasons can improve our political system, if done wisely.

"Canadians would be best served, we believe, if elected leaders broke ranks with their parties somewhat more often, not in knee-jerk regional (or linguistic) solidarity but in thoughtful expression of individual visions of society. Few matters, after all, really need to be questions of confidence for governments.

True, more liberty for caucus members would surely create a small, annoying class of professional dissenters. But in the long run, individual lawmakers would be more useful if they were not shackled so tightly by party discipline."

Writing in the Guelph Mercury, William Christian argues that ILMI may be forced into this new (for politics in general and in general in Canada) posture precisely because of his own beliefs about democracy and concepts of leadership. Using a phrase favoured by ILMI's political philosopher uncle, George Grant: "Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling", Christian muses that in the instance of the NL 6, ILMI chose to be led, by members of the Liberal caucus (not Ignatieff-Liberals), pointing out (as has Quixotique, btw) that "They knew why they got elected. It wasn't because of the Liberal party and it certainly wasn't because of him."

Which brings Quixotque back to earlier musings about ILMI and his position in the Party and how he may find himself in a minority leadership situation within it, what that means to his democratic outlook, and whether if he agrees with that democratic outlook, it extends, in a principled way, to his position on the proposed coalition. It seems to me that if it did, while casting aside the concept of a coalition government as a viable political option at the time, he could have embraced the concept of a coalition opposition.


One of the arguments raised against the proposed coalition government was that its prospect was not contemplated by the public. Leaving aside the debate about that, no one could argue nonetheless that the concept is not in front of them now and an intent on the table. There seems to me no reason why, having entered into a agreement, the opposition parties could not continue this agreement in the context of their collective role as an opposition.


In so thinking, ILMI might have offered the NDP a real role in crafting substantive amendments to the budget on areas where they agreed it was woefully inadequate and where they could have improved the budget to better meet ILMI's conditions for acceptability; EI and green infrastructure come to mind. (Only the Official Opposition can move an amendment to the budget and the third party may offer sub-amendments, but the NDP had no legislative mechanism on its own to amend on first reading.) PMSH would have been hard pressed to oppose such an amendment, knowing that it's acceptance would mean at least two of the three opposition parties would subsequently support the budget and there would be greater consensus amongst parliaments and the electorate alike.

That would have been doing politics boldly and differently. Ah, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

"For you must know that in newly conquered kingdoms and provinces the natives are never totally subdued..."

At a recent event, attended by the most "high profile" of Liberals, in the approving presence of ILMI, I heard Bob Rae tell the gathering that "there are no Bob Rae Liberals, there are no Leblanc Liberals, there are no Martin or Chrétien or Trudeau Liberals; we are Liberals." True too then, that there no Ignatieff Liberals either, as surely while we believe in the necessity for strong leadership and loyalty to (yes, the person in whom we've placed guidance of our party in trust, but more to the office of) the Leader, we should be bound more together in our belief(s) in something: some shared principles, some common values, than in someone.

I absolutely do say this to be provocative, and I say it too in the context of change and renewal the Party needs and craves and which the current party leadership has told us it recognizes. Whether of our own free will or whether as a result of blind loyalty and naiivité, our Party has come to a point where any dissension, either with respect to opinion or process, any difference of opinion, nuanced or substantial, and most ruefully any debate, significant or not, is viewed as undesireable and disloyal: a challenge to leadership.

Well, leaders - and parties - should be challenged. Challenges make you think, often skillfully and on your feet; thinking about a challenge can make you solidify your position, or lead you to change your mind. Challenge can make you more focused or cause you to reflect on the actual interests you are pursuing. It's how you react to challenges that marks your measure. I certainly recall many lessons learned through my own (very long ago now) youthful rebellion. And, as a parent, I also know the lessons I've learned from the rebellions (or lack of - my two are very different from each other) of my own children. On that example, the lesson learned is often that the more you try to stifle youthful rebellion rather than deal with it, the more rebellious it can get!

So, while I get and respect what Rae was saying ('get with the program, people'), I certainly hope that any "restless natives" amongst us are treated as respectfully as those of who choose to accept things holus bolus.

Challenged as we have been by ILMI to examine our practices, structures, and presentation to the public (and, allow me to add, resistant to allowing PMSH to continue to view us as his conquered kingdom) let's help him get on with it in an open, bold and unafraid manner; strengthening and growing our party will not only be in his best interests, but hopefully, soon, in the country's. As long as we do it with the latter objective rather than the former in mind.

Sancho, the realist, tells his master,

"I sometimes think that all you tell me of knighthood, kingdoms, empires and islands is all windy blather and lies"

So we see a flurry of announcements (and appointments) on the organizational side of the Party over the weekend related to themes that likely resonate with most active (and inactive) Liberals: renewal, change and preparedness.

On the face of it, these are smart and early moves by Interim Leader (IL), Michael Ignatieff in indicating to a Party frankly conflicted by the opportunities afforded by new and fresh (not-Dion) leadership and concerns over how we got here and perpetuation of the "same old, same old", that he's listened, and taken swift actions.

Unfortunately it seems to some (certainly this writer) that while ILMI has learned from the experience of the last leader who simply couldn't get the Party's act together on anything (2.5 National Directors, botched by-elections, election unreadiness, lackadaisical and indecisive candidate recutiment and no proposed reforms), he has also taken pages out of several books from the past: go with who you know, go with the flow, go with the status quo.

While I still can't totally wrap my mind around the need for both a renewal and a change process, and I do think that the National Campaign co-chairs are a group of respected, skilled adults, the make-up of the Renewal Committee leaves me scratching my head. I guess if you want to make sure that everyone knows that you are firmly in control you're going to make sure that the reforms people are craving are nonetheless not too risky and ultimately made in your own image.

For the most part the individuals named to the Renewal Committee share the common ground of either supporting ILMI in one or other of his leadership bids (so one assumes too support for the process that brought him victory) and/or are long-standing associates of the institutional party. To the extent that these people have status in the party it is because they have participated in the development of current processes (written, but also largely unwritten) and have benefitted from them: they are products of the status quo. Just like ILMI (PMPM too) was unchallenged, it is very likely that the "responsibility to protect" will ensure that the current command and control nature of the party remains so as well.

So the carrot of reform has been dangled in front us and knighthood, kingdoms and empires await those of us who clamber aboard the horse in its never-ending (and futile?) pursuit.