« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »

February 18, 2009

At the Risk of Being Labelled a FanBoy...

... I have to say: this guy's good at his job.



By "his job," I mean governing a G7 nation. Two points. First, isn't it fascinating to see Harper interviewed by someone with whom he doesn't have the dysfunctional relationship he has with the Parliamentary press gallery? I'm not laying blame for that relationship; goodness knows there's plenty to go around. And I'm not saying Harper always deserves the softballs Blitzer tossed him. But isn't it a welcome change to hear him interviewed by someone who isn't - or at least who isn't suspected of being - either secretly or openly hostile to Harper's policies? Someone who asks a question, lets Harper answer it, and then follows up with a question that builds on the answer rather than attacking the assumptions on which the answer is based? It's almost like the interview was about what Harper, as opposed to Blitzer, had to say.

Point two is related. The PPG, which spends all its time thinking, writing, and talking about Harper and the national media scene, is understandably focused on the myriad details of the Harper government's administration. Isn't it interesting to see an interview more interested in the forest than the trees? Again, I'm not suggesting that there aren't plenty of trees worthy of attention. But wouldn't a big-picture interview like this be welcome, once in a while?

And finally - call it a bonus point: can you imagine Michael Ignatieff talking as intelligently, and thoughtfully, and with as much apparent authority--and as simply--about the economic and trade issues Harper addresses? Maybe you can. Certainly the Iggy camp is trying to put together a message of competence versus Harper incompetence. But if the Tories are able to showcase this Harper, it's not at all clear to me that Iggy will win the competence debate.

Bonus bonus point: Of course Iggy may be just as capable and competent as Harper. Stop guffawing: that's a very good thing.

Posted by David Mader at 06:25 PM | (0) | Back to Main

February 05, 2009

About Iggy and those N.L. MPs

The conventional wisdom in newsrooms and among the bien-pensant across the country is that Parliament is dysfunctional and our political class embarrassing. But presented this week with an instance of sophisticated politicking, the commentariat have, almost without exception, cried bloody murder. What is wrong with these people?

The complaints about our dysfunctional Parliament are right, and the cause is obvious. In a parliamentary system, executive power is exercised, for all practical purposes, by the majority leader of the (essentially unicameral) legislative branch. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, if the majority leader's ability to control the legislative agenda were constrained. But--in part because of his ability to bestow executive favors (like Senate appointments or targeted government spending), and in part because of party rules that allow a leader to give and take away riding nominations--a majority party leader has essentially unconstrained control of the legislative agenda. And, as a result, his executive power is essentially unchecked.

The fix is simpler in theory than in practice. In theory, breaking a leader's control over his caucus would mean recognizing a division between cabinet (or shadow-cabinet) and caucus. The cabinet--and here I include junior ministers and secretaries of state--are always whipped, because they are executive officers, and as such they are bound to support executive policy. (The same, I think, should apply to the shadow-cabinet, inasmuch as it represents an executive-in-waiting.) But caucus members who are not members of the cabinet have no such duty; they can be expected to support the initiatives and positions of their colleagues in cabinet (or shadow-cabinet), for that is what a party in Parliament is--a collection of like-minded parliamentarians. But they have no formal obligation to support the cabinet (or shadow-cabinet).

The practical challenge is to change expectations regarding the behavior of the caucus. Decades ago Pierre Trudeau derisively dismissed his backbench MPs as nobodies, and for some insane reason that attitude has been accepted as gospel truth. That has to change. And change means adjusting the attitudes and expectations of two institutions.

First, the parties themselves have to change. As long as a party leader controls nominations--whether through a party executive or directly--backbench MPs will always act as if whipped. An MP who might be perfectly willing to speak his mind--and the minds of his constituents--at the price of a cabinet appointment will clam up fast when the consequence is to be stripped of a nomination, and therefore (at best!) elected as an independent at the next election. But it's not as simple as amending a party constitution to remove this nomination-interfering power; the problem is a consequence of the leader-centric nature of political parties. The solution? Rather than making MPs beholden to their leader, why not make the leader beholden to MPs? Scrap direct elections, scrap conventions, and do what the Grits have just done to great success: allow MPs to select the leader. All of a sudden the power equation is flipped. MPs no longer rely on the leader for their jobs; now the leader must treat his MPs like MPs again.

But the parties don't operate in isolation; they operate to the incessant bleating of the national news media. And we've seen this week what the received wisdom in the media is: a party leader who allows any of the dozens of MPs in his party to express, publicly or privately, any sentiment at odds in any respect with any of his publicly or privately stated positions is a weak, ineffectual, and doomed leader.

This is nonsense. But as long as it is the prevailing attitude in the press, the parties--and particularly their leaders--will be unwilling to strike a new path. On the other hand, if--like Lawrence Martin in the Globe, and entirely unlike the Globe editorialists--the commentariat see the empowerment of individual MPs as a good thing, leaders will be more likely to take steps to empower their MPs, and thereby restore sophistication and maturity to Commons.

Is it pie in the sky? Maybe. But how about this: until it happens, any commentator who criticizes a party leader for allowing his (non-cabinet) MPs to act like MPs should be barred from complaining about the state of politics in Ottawa--unless he or she frankly concedes that dysfunction is his or her preference.

Posted by David Mader at 02:27 PM | (0) | Back to Main