"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.

"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.