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.