The Myth of the Imperial Leader

When a Premier resigns, it is always news. This is especially true when the person in question leads a strong majority in the Legislature and has a record of winning elections. When Frank McKenna announced his departure as First Minister (another name for Premier or Prime Minister) in 1997, it was recognized that he left at the top of his game, having won three elections as Liberal Leader.

The political fates were not as kind to Gordon Campbell, the former Premier of British Columbia or former PM Jean Chrétien, who recently celebrated his 80^th birthday. Despite each winning three elections, they left their offices under much different circumstances than McKenna.

The surprise resignation of Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale follows a similar path as Chrétien and Campbell. Despite winning the 2011 election, which yielded 36 seats for the Progressive Conservatives versus six Liberals and five New Democrats, and holding a massive working majority in the House of Assembly, Dunderdale decided to exit the political stage.

For Dunderdale, as with Chrétien and Campbell, the precursor to this decision was a restless caucus. The decision of two MHAs, as they are called in Newfoundland and Labrador, to leave the Progressive Conservative Caucus acted as the trigger for her resignation. Certainly other factors were at play, but the moment of truth was created by the individual decisions of the caucus members.

Even without these two caucus members, Dunderdale would have still have a clear majority in the House of Assembly. Further, since First Ministers are believed to hold all the power and control every facet of government, why did Dunderdale feel the need to resign?

Perhaps her resignation reveals some truths about our parliamentary system that we have been told to ignore. Over the past 30 years, Canadians have been consistently told that our First Ministers, Premiers and Prime Ministers alike, reign in splendid isolation. We are told, by pundits, academics and even parliamentarians, that First Ministers decide everything and exert an Orwellian level of control of everything they survey.

However, those who have studied the relationship between the Executive and the Legislatures in Canada have observed that the theme of “centralization of power” around the personality of the First Minister is an old one, and was directed as much at John A. MacDonald or Tommy Douglas in their day as it is focussed on Stephen Harper or David Alward today. As one academic noted, you need only to change the names or the titles to see the same arguments and concerns repeating themselves throughout our history. Nothing substantive has been added to this critique of “executive tyranny” since the pre-Confederation battles for Responsible Government.

The other myth exploded by Dunderdale’s resignation concerns the powerlessness of individual members of our Legislatures. Just as we are told that First Ministers exercise complete and unaccountable power, we are told that individual parliamentarians are completely powerless and play no meaningful role in providing a check on executive power. If this myth of “powerlessness” were true, why would the defection of two MHAs trigger the resignation of the all-powerful First Minister?

The reality is that neither of these myths – the Imperial First Minister or the insignificant legislator – is true. They are dangerous falsehoods that deliberately misinform citizens on the true nature of our political institutions.

First Ministers do not reign alone. Politics is a team endeavour and a successful First Minister must continually balance the personal dynamics of Caucus and Cabinet in order to stay in office. As former British PM Benjamin Disraeli observed, the trick is not to climb to the top of the “greasy poll” of politics, the trick is to stay there while others are trying to pull you down.

Individual parliamentarians, at both the provincial and federal level, exercise considerable power. They are not members of the Executive but they can intervene in public debates in a way that no one else can. They can propose their own legislation, introduce resolutions, and advocate policy. When they decide to leave their Caucus, such as former Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber or former NDP MP Bruce Hyer, they are seen as giving a severe rebuke to their leadership. The exit of former MLA Stuart Jamieson from both Cabinet and Caucus was seen as a severe blow to Shawn Graham’s Liberal Government.

Further, as in the situation facing Dunderdale, it requires only a few defections to effect a change in Leadership. As former BC NDP Leader Carole James can attest, this withdrawal of confidence can also apply to opposition leaders as well.

As citizens, we need to be attentive to the lessons that are taught by these situations. Rather than being caught up in the stale and repetitive falsehoods that undermine our understanding of how we are governed, we need to embrace the fact that there is a balance within our system. Our First Ministers are not all-powerful, just as our MLAs and MPs are not “nobodies.” We cheat ourselves if we continue to indulge the myths that act as a barrier to our understanding of our working democracy.  

- 30 –

This article was originally published in the January 25, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

 

So, you want to be an MLA...

Congratulations on your decision to offer yourself for public office. You will find this challenge both exhilarating and frustrating, a real roller-coaster of highs and lows. I just want to offer you a few words of advice that you should find useful in your campaign.

No doubt, you have already discussed this decision with your family and close friends and have already secured their firm support. You will be relying on them quite heavily in the weeks and months to come. No matter how well organized or well-financed your campaign is, you will have some dark days (or nights) ahead of you. Hopefully, they will have the patience and enduring kindness to put up with those inevitable moments in every campaign that test your sanity.

Electoral politics is the only part of public life in Canada that is still dominated by amateurs. This is a good thing.

Candidates for office come from every walk of life and every background in our Province. Although their life paths may be very different from yours, you will find that you share quite a bit with the other candidates competing with you for office. You are likely driven by the same passion to serve, and by the same belief that you have something unique to offer. They may be your opponents, but they are not your enemy.

Campaigns can become bitter, narrowly partisan battles. If you start thinking of your opponents as “the enemy”, this can lead you down a very dark and negative path. This attitude encourages the very worst of behaviour and, since your campaign workers will take the cue from you as to the tone of your campaign, you need to avoid this viewpoint like the plague.

As C.S. Lewis wisely wrote, “The next best thing to an honourable friend is an honourable opponent.” Since elections are adversarial by nature, it is best to be an honourable opponent. Even if others do not respond in kind, you will find that this approach will save you a lot of trouble, especially as the tension heightens and tempers start to fray.

This is not an easy thing to do. The pressure-cooker atmosphere of a fiercely contested election would try the patience of a saint. But being a good elected representative implies a certain quality of character that should be able to rise above the temptation to get down in the gutter. By showing that you can “take the heat”, you demonstrate that you are ready to serve in public office.

I also hope that you have several sturdy pairs of good shoes. Given the amount of time that you will be on your feet, mostly going door-to-door in your riding, good shoes are an important investment in your campaign.

Both academic research and political experience proves that the best place to deliver a political message is at the doorstep. The television ad, the telephone call, the brochure or the radio spot are not as effective or as compelling as a candidate asking a voter for their support.

This may be more difficult in a rural riding than in an urban one, but the principle of direct contact between the candidate and the voter is the same. Not only is door-knocking the best way to solicit votes, it also renews the social contract between voters and those seeking office. Electoral studies show that voter turnout is higher among those who have received a visit from a candidate or a campaign volunteer. Not only these people more likely to vote, these people are more likely to vote for you.

You will not be able to convince everyone of the rightness of your cause and there are some people who will not treat your presence on their doorstep as a positive event. But you will be surprised and encouraged by the genuine interest you will receive.

Pace yourself but make the effort to ensure that you, or your team, knock on every door you can.

As a last note, you need to establish a respectful relationship with the media covering your election contest. Reporters are there to tell a story, not to provide unqualified praise or free advertising. They have deadlines they need to meet, as well as editors or producers to satisfy. If you have something newsworthy to share, you will find a receptive audience. If, however, you feel that you should receive media attention because “it’s your turn”, you are sure to be disappointed.

Reporters are not your friends. They are also not your opponents. They are just trying to do their job and the essence of good media relations is to help them with this task. This does not mean that you need to pander or tell them every thought that occurs to you. It does mean that you should ensure that all relevant media outlets receive your campaign communications and that you are fair to all reporters covering your campaign.

Even if you have no comment on an issue, a timely phone call or email to say so is better appreciated than dragging out a non-response past deadline. It also helps if you know what you want to say to the media and what you consider to be off-limits. On this, it is critical to be consistent. If you decide not to talk about your family, for example, don’t.

There is plenty more to discuss but you already have enough on your plate right now. As you proceed through your campaign, just remember that the penalty of not having good people run for office is being governed by the bad.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the January 18, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

Taking on the Straw Men

A number of years ago, while campaigning with a municipal candidate in Winnipeg, we knocked on the door of an elderly lady who showed little interest in our desire to solicit her support. When we tried to convince her of the importance of voting, she shook her head sadly and told us, "It doesn't matter who I vote for, the government always wins."

Struck by the inescapable logic of this statement, we thanked her for her patience and went on to the next doorstep.

Over the last few weeks, a number of articles have appeared in View from the West decrying the state of Canadian democracy and urging a program of reform. While I would not defend the notion that our current democratic system is perfect, I certainly reject the views put forward by Gordon Gibson, Preston Manning and Ted Morton that our political system is a shameful failure.

One common feature of these articles is that they rely on the same kind of circular logic employed by the elderly non-voter. While some of the "examples" put forward by these authors to illustrate their cases are merely straw men -- put up so that they can be easily struck down -- some of these arguments represent a point of view that, upon further consideration, are repugnant to the majority of Canadians.

In his article, Fixing Canadian Democracy, Gibson repeats a myth that has some currency in right-wing circles that votes in Atlantic Canada are "bought" by political parties seeking power. We are all familiar with the notion that politicians try to buy our support, but this argument is based on a premise that voters in Atlantic Canada are actually for sale. According to Gibson and his colleagues at the Fraser Institute, the attachment of Atlantic voters to democratic virtues is significantly less than, let's say, voters in Alberta or Manitoba.

Further, Gibson states that our immigration policy is "designed not for the advantage of Canada, but instead chiefly with Vancouver's -- and especially Toronto's -- ethnic voting patterns in mind." I would challenge Gibson to come up with some substantive proof that supports this curious assertion. He presumes that our current immigration policy is not based on a point-system to select those best-suited for our country, but exists for the sole purpose of supporting the Liberal vote. Any student of Western Canadian history knows that this argument is an old one, and was used to criticize the immigration policies of Clifford Sifton at the turn of the last century. If, indeed, the chief purpose of our immigration policy is to support the Liberal vote, why didn't the Progressive Conservatives dismantle it over the nine years they were in power? Or, if immigrant communities are so attached to the Liberal Party, why are there a significant number of these individuals from them, like Grumant Grewal from Surrey, sitting as Members of Parliament in the Canadian Alliance caucus? Again, this premise is based on a view that Canadians with an immigrant background do not have minds of their own when it comes to voting. All of these views have more than a tinge of xenophobia to them and would delight the most fervent conspiracy theorist.

In his article Gay Marriage and the decline of democracy in Canada, Professor Morton argues that both the "truth" and "Canadian democracy" have been ill-treated by our political and legal systems. He takes the recent Ontario court decision on the validity of same-sex marriage as the prime example. As with Gibson, he sets up a series of "straw men" to be knocked down, devoting considerable column-inches to putting words into the mouths of his opponents and then showing the error of their so-called beliefs.

Morton has created a fiction, called "the Court Party", which is the villain in this piece (and in other articles and books that he has written). If we are to believe Morton, the Court Party (with its allies and "apologists") has devoted itself to taking power away from Parliament and the people generally and giving power to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The chief instrument of abuse is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been used, in Morton's view, to force unpopular laws onto Parliament and the country.

Aside from the fact that judicial review is an important and time-honoured principle of Canadian constitutional law, the Charter is possibly the most popular and significant law that exists in Canada today. Rather than seeing the Charter as a document that recognizes the rights of all Canadians, Morton sees it as privileging a few and, for this and possibly other reasons, he wants to reduce interpretation of it to the narrowest possible extent.

If this is what he believes, so be it. But where is the need to create a mysterious, malevolent cabal like the "Court Party" if not to justify a somewhat shaky belief? It's good fiction, but not a credible analysis of the interaction between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government.

The most unfortunate thing about Manning's article, Shattering the faith-politics taboo, is that it provides further evidence that he has turned down the role of elder statesman, preferring to indulge in the partisanship that he stridently objects to elsewhere. Manning states that an "unwritten rule" forbids MPs from raising matters of faith and religion in debate, and argues that this is incongruous because a large majority of Canadians adhere to a religious faith or belief. Well, if such a rule existed (it doesn't), who would obey it? If it were to be broken, who would enforce it? Certainly not those who hold religious beliefs and care about the beliefs they hold. And, if we can assume that MPs are much like their constituents, wouldn't a majority of Parliamentarians hold a religious or spiritual belief too?

In fact, many MPs, regardless of party stripe, hold strong religious beliefs and use them as a source of strength and insight. NDP Parliamentary Leader and United Church minister Bill Blaikie is a familiar example for many Manitobans. It is obvious from his record that his faith is an important part of what motivates him as a politician. He is also a student of parliamentary procedure and knows the rules and conventions of the House of Commons, written and otherwise.

Canadians appreciate that their elected politicians may have strong personal beliefs. They even understand that these beliefs may create difficulties for MPs on matters of conscience and, by and large, would not expect their MP to vote for (or against) a measure that conflicts with this belief. What Canadians do not accept -- and perhaps this is the point that Mr. Manning was trying to make -- is the idea of politicians forcing their religious beliefs on others. Personal testimony is fine, even praised, but proselytizing is not.

At the end of all this is the fact that our democratic system, as flawed as it may be, does provide for free and fair elections, stable governments and the orderly transfer of power. While we may not be enamoured with the choices offered to us, we have a choice -- even the choice to stand for election or create new political choices.

I find it an irony that while all three writers are ardent proponents of the market system, the only place where they appear disenchanted with the "market approach" is when it comes to voting and the outcomes of elections. It's true: no matter who you vote for, the government always wins. Isn't that the objective of elections, selecting governments?

Gibson, Manning and Morton all adopt the position that, since a majority of Canadians disagree with their views, the Canadian system is broken and needs to be fixed. But they talk about fixing our democracy in the same way as fixing a horse race. They want to create a process that will ensure an outcome they agree with, rather than ensuring that the process is seen as objective, fair and delivers a result that we all have a hand in making.

Can we do better? Certainly. In this, I share Churchill's jocular but insightful view that our political system is the worst there is, if not for all the rest.

-30 -

This article was originally published in the July 20, 2003 of the Winnipeg Free Press.

Can we break the Spin Cycle?

[This article was a reflection on the 2000 Federal Election but still holds true today.]

Four out of ten eligible voters decided not to cast a ballot for any of the five major parties or for any of the other parties contesting the election. With such a wide range of choices, why were so many Canadians alienated from our political process? Of course, we know that the campaign in 2000 was quite rough, with plenty of invective and hyperbole. But was 2000 really any different? A review of previous elections finds that aggressive campaigning is the norm in a political system that is the most ruthless in the Western World.

Perhaps the major difference was that this campaign was more about the leaders than the parties or their policies. Previous elections were about something; regional representation in 1997, the need for change in 1993, our relationship with the United States in 1988, and so on. But what was the main issue in 2000? We know from our daily election tracking program that concern about health care was the main preoccupation of Canadians and that this concern increased throughout the campaign. But aside from declarations in support of the five principles outlined in the Canada Health Act and accusations against other parties, was anything said about health care?

We also know that three out of five Canadians base their voting decision on policies, compared to only one-in five who say either the party leader or the local candidate. Why then was there no policy debate in this election? Is it because the policy positions of the parties were indistinguishable from each other? Hardly.

Some say that the behaviour of our politicians is to blame, that if they spent less time attacking each other they could spend more time promoting their policies. Is that true? Are the politicians responsible for the reduction of policy debate to soundbites and bumpersticker slogans?

Or is it the media, who prefer "media friendly" politicians over more substantive, yet boring, candidates? Despite their pretensions as public institutions, the media are businesses and they are driven by a need to attract and hold an audience.

Or is it our citizenry, who say they want a more comprehensive debate but have little patience, or time, to investigate these issues for themselves? Policy sells, but who’s buying?

We are trapped in a mutually reinforcing downward cycle. Our politicians need media coverage, so they compete for media attention. Our media needs an audience, preferably a paying one, so they focus on the sensational and the salacious. As citizens, we feel that the pundits and politicians are becoming more remote and we start tuning them out. This forces both politicians and the media to turn up the volume, which aggravates the problem further. Can we break the spin cycle?

It is not an easy problem to solve, but we should look to ourselves for a solution. If we don’t, voter turnout will continue to decrease and we will lose our democracy out of neglect.

- 30 -

This article appeared on the December 7, 2000 broadcast of CBC Commentary.

A crisis too good to waste

“Don’t let a good crisis go to waste.” This is the view of Donald Savoie, one of Canada’s leading academics in the field of public administration. For Savoie, and for many of those who study the ways that governments govern, this phrase highlights one of the behavioural realities behind bringing change to large, unwieldy organizations. Given the slow-moving, even glacial, pace of government reform, sometimes a crisis is needed to spur action and achieve the change we desire.

What Savoie argues is that we should not let the opportunity to achieve positive change slip through our fingers, even if (or especially if) the spark for that change comes from a negative source.

Research in Motion, the makers of the famed Blackberry, are struggling to reinvent themselves and their flagship product in the face of declining sales and increased competition. Apple is pondering its future without Steve Jobs at the helm. In New Brunswick, we are wondering how to deal with chronic provincial deficits and the possible impact that a dramatic reduction in government spending might have on our economy and our public services.

And that is the dilemma facing Premier Alward and Finance Minister Higgs. If it were really as simple as cutting government spending, the solution would be easy – cut until you balance the budget. However, the challenge is to achieve a balanced budget without putting the provincial economy in a tailspin or without cutting those public services that we, as citizens and taxpayers, value and pay for.

The problem is, and always has been, a matter of political will. The status quo has its champions – those who benefit from the current situation and those who fear that things can only get worse.

The benefit of a crisis is that it holds up a mirror to both these groups. It shows that the situation is unsustainable or that, without action, the situation will grow worse. A crisis can also compel a slow-moving organization to act. A “good” crisis, like an impending execution, can focus the mind.

Rather than pleading helplessness or, even worse, panicking, how should the Government of New Brunswick deal with its financial situation?

The first step would be to recognize that the current situation is largely one of our making. If we got ourselves into this mess, then we can get ourselves out of it. By taking responsibility, we also admit that we do not expect anyone else to help us out of our situation.

The second step is to get serious about expenditure control within Government. As the recent budget update revealed, government revenues have not met the expectations set out in the last Budget. Unfortunately, government spending has also exceeded projections, leaving us even worse off than before. Perhaps a strengthened Board of Management, one of the recent reforms announced by Premier Alward, will provide the expenditure control the provincial government so desperately needs.

Management guru Peter Drucker is known for saying that you cannot manage what you do not measure. For our two largest government departments in terms of spending, Health and Education, we are not measuring very much at all.

We do know that, year after year, more money is being allocated to these two departments. What we do not know, or measure, is the impact that this increased funding is having on service delivery and outcomes. While other departments need to justify their existence and their programs on an annual basis, Health and Education are given a relatively free ride during budget time.

New Brunswickers want a robust health care system. We also want schools that achieve results. Despite the additional millions being allocated to these departments on a yearly basis, we are not sure we are getting the results we are paying for.

We need more accountability from both these departments with regard to the way they are spending public funds. It is not enough for Government to say that they are spending more in these areas; we need to have confidence that this money is being well spent. By measuring more, by becoming serious about evaluating the efficacy of spending within their portfolios, both departments will be better managed.

Both departments are in serious need of modernization. Again, the problem is not with the public servants who are delivering health care or classroom instruction, it is with the antiquated business processes that both departments employ. Both departments have been talking about new initiatives to streamline management and provide the detailed information to better manage resources, such as the “One Patient One Record” system for health care or a new human resources and payroll system for Education. Unfortunately, there has been more talk than action on these fronts. The sooner we make the investments that will help better manage these big spending departments, the sooner we will reap the benefits.

During the 1990s, governments across Canada made a focussed effort to balance their budgets and to keep them balanced. One of the key lessons drawn from this experience is that an increased focus on serving citizens, by being timelier and less bureaucratic, is more likely to deliver overall cost savings than the across-the-board cuts that are favoured by Departments of Finance.

Essentially, the less time an item stays on a government desk, the less it costs government to manage. By streamlining the way things are done, government services become more responsive and citizens enjoy better service. Service New Brunswick is a good example of how an innovative approach can deliver better results for citizens at a reduced cost to taxpayers.

In contrast, a program of government restraint that is purely focused on spending cuts has proven to be unsuccessful. In addition to creating chaos within government as they manage arbitrary budget reductions, a “cuts-only” approach does nothing for the citizen. Without modernizing or retooling government processes, the savings from a “cuts-only” prove transitory. Once budget balance is achieved under this model, pent-up demands for better service will force government to increase spending once again.

Rather than expecting less from government, we should expect more. We should expect that government will look beyond the reductive exercise of arbitrary cuts to the more demanding (and more rewarding) approach of using better service as a tool to drive costs down.  

The Government of New Brunswick needs to seize this opportunity. It really is “a crisis too good to waste.”

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the January 2, 2013 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

Governing for Friday Afternoon

As the saying goes, “Statesmen govern for the next generation; politicians govern for Friday afternoon.” In a few short words, this saying accurately sums up one of the most entrenched problems facing our system of governance – the obsessive focus on the short-term that crowds out long-term, strategic thinking.

When we think about the difficult problems facing our country and our province – the need to balance budgets and pay down debt, providing better education and health care, retooling our economy – all of these issues require solutions that need to be delivered over the long term.

We know this. Why, then, is our leadership trapped in the pattern of governing for Friday afternoon?

The sad reality is that our leadership can be easily trapped in the “immediate” – the disturbing headline, the awkward gaffe, the clash of personalities – that captures our attention and seemingly demands a rapid response. We see this all the time. An issue pops up and there is a pell-mell rush to get in front of a microphone, issue a press release, email “talking points” or otherwise demonstrate responsiveness to a new public concern.   

Although many observers blame this on the 24/7 media cycle, the rise of social media or other new communications tools, the need to win the battle for “hearts and minds” on a daily basis is as old as politics itself. It is also very seductive.

By its nature, a strategic approach is seen as rather dull. It is based on policy and a plan that unfolds over time, with regular evaluation and coordination. There may be a worthy goal at the end but that’s as sexy as it gets. Following a strategy has far less excitement, urgency and bombast to it than responding to the crise du jour. But only a strategic approach can get a large, dispersed organization like government to go where it needs to go.

In a situation where government goes from crisis to crisis, it needs resources but it does not need a plan. There is also no need for research capacity or expertise in policy development or program evaluation. Under this scenario, it is no surprise that those working in policy or strategic planning are most often the first to be tossed over the side when it is time to trim government’s operating expenses.

Without its own independent capacity to evaluate policy, governments become prey to anyone with a good story to tell. Governments become policy-takers, not policy-makers. Without the ability to look beyond the immediate future, governments become incapable of developing and implementing the long-term solutions we need. More often than not, the public dollars wasted is only exceeded by the time wasted by senior managers and elected officials in dealing with these transitory “crises.”

But governments can escape from this trap.

First, our leadership needs the maturity to understand that not everything is a crisis. The most successful leaders and governments are those that set the agenda rather than be driven by events.

As well, our leadership needs discipline to resist the temptations that crisis brings – the promise of media exposure, the novelty and the adrenaline rush of confrontation. Governing well demands attention to the day-to-day details and a focus on delivering programs and services.

Government decision-making is more than trying to decide between good and bad. It is the complex task of deciding between good, better and best – all within a sensible fiscal and legal framework. This cannot be done on the back of a napkin or by holding a finger up in the wind. It requires careful thought, engagement with stakeholders and a commitment to timely action. Investing in policy capacity will save tax dollars in the long run.

And for those who think that policy is irrelevant in an adversarial political system dominated by sound bites and attack ads, it should be remembered that one-half of a voter’s decision at the ballot box is based on the perceived ability of political parties or leaders to handle the policy issues of the day. More often than not good policy makes good politics.

All these lessons are wasted on those who think that governing is simply trying to make it through the week.

 

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the December 23, 2013 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.