The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Leadership What about leadership? Are leaders born not made as the saying goes or do they learn and grow on the job? One political belief is that events make the man (or woman ) and there are plenty of examples to support this thought . Napoleon had leadership thrust on him when the French Revolution and the killing of the king created a power vacuum at the top. The great general certainly filled the bill and is still revered as the greatest leader in the history of France. The aftermath of World War One allowed Adolph Hitler to generate the anger and hatred which elected him as chancellor. As a leader he was certainly effective, effectively destroying people, other nations and his own country. In more modern times, Margaret Thatcher, the 'Iron Lady' of Britain, showed her mettle in the Falkland Island crisis, and restored her deteriorating reputation with the British voters. There are also numerous examples of leaders learning and developing on the job, which is also a very popular theory. Cynics say it is popular because everyone can visualize themselves in a leadership position if only the opportunity would arise. Hence we find leadership courses for teachers, principals, school trustees, councilors, union reps, and aspiring politicians plus anyone involved in business, abounding throughout the country. One political leader who learned on the job but also certainly exhibited leadership ability was Brian Mulroney. Although he had run for leader of the PC's before, Mulroney had virtually no political experience when he narrowly wrested away the leadership from Joe Clark in June, 1983. Clark, who many PC's and most non-PC's considered a hapless non-leader as a short term Prime Minister, had received 66% of the vote in a leadership review at the earlier Winnipeg convention, but called for a leadership vote (hoping for 51%). Like him or hate him, Mulroney dominated the Canadian scene for nine years, winning two elections in spite of scandals, bad judgment calls and public hostility to his GST and free trade policies. No Tory caucus revolts with Brian in charge even though he singleÐhandedly destroyed the Conservative Party, which dropped to two seats in 1993 and has not recovered since. One could also argue that he was primarily responsible for the rise of the PQ in Quebec and the Reform in the west. What about leadership by default? Lester Pearson is a good example, winning the 1958 Liberal leadership after Prime minister St. Laurent's disastrous defeat the previous year. A Nobel Prize winner, Pearson never did display much in the way of leadership, and was never able to win a majority government in spite of strong support in Ontario and Quebec. Even so, one of the best examples of leadership by default is Jean Chretien. Defeated for Liberal leader in June, 1984 by John Turner, he plotted against Turner for four years, and was finally elected leader after Turner's retirement. Chretien also won the 1993 election by default as the electorate rushed to turf out the Tories, and aided by vote-splitting, he has won since then in spite of a most noticeable lack of leadership ability. His leadership appears to be leadership by personal belief or opportunity. Paul Samyn, national writer for the Winnipeg Free Press, who has for years written supportive (some say fawning) articles about Chretien and his often-reversible policies, recently called the Prime Minister's leadership as "leadership by hiding". Samyn notes that in every crisis in Canada, Chretien disappeared, only re-appearing after the fact. Paul mentions the mad-cow crisis, the SARS affair, and the electrical blow out in the east as examples when Chretien did not appear to show leadership. Only in the B.C. forest fire disaster this summer did the PM, stung by criticism, show up to tour the fire-ravaged areas. Even then, he didn't promise to help much with B.C.'s $500 million cost of fighting the fires. Samyn and a number of critics theorize that Chretien recognizes that the Canadian public has a low expectation of he and his government and indeed of all politicians, thus the low/non-existent profile in times of crises. Paul Martin, the 65 year old former finance minister is Chretien's replacement in November (or February), but certainly not by default. It is ironic that Chretien, who plotted to replace his leader was in turn plotted against by Martin whom he defeated in 1990. As finance minister, Martin established a reputation as a fiscal conservative, while setting up a massive and well-financed organization within the Liberal party to replace the increasingly unpopular Prime Minister. Chretien recognized the danger, foolishly kicked Martin out of the cabinet, then was forced by a near caucus revolt to announce the date of his retirement. Martin was also nearly invisible, not attending the Commons, not taking a stand on anything and certainly not antagonizing any Liberals until his election was certain. His coronation will happen in November, but we may be faced with the ridiculous situation of two Prime Ministers until February. Martin's eastern-led brain trust are appearing in the press and on TV trying to create a myth about Martin as supporting Liberal MP's are scrambling to get themselves a position of power in the new government. The myth of "great leader" is being countered by opposition critics and others who consider Martin a "fossil". Keep tuned.
