Thursday, June 12, 2003
Two lame duck Liberal leaders - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER – Jean Chrétien's long goodbye confounded his critics when he announced his schedule for departure in the summer of 2002. Soon after, his Liberal colleagues, even his arch nemesis Paul Martin, were out in front of the microphones quick to praise their leader. Now, the praise for their dear leader is few and far between. Now, Liberals have come to realise that picking a new leader in November of this year, yet seeing Chrétien leave in 2004, is not ideal, and somewhat disingenuous on the part of the Prime Minister. Such is politics, as the Chrétien butt boys and girls, will probably charge pro-Martinites with the same, if not more so.
At least, the Liberals realise that it is folly to see a new leader chosen so soon, yet not having that leader to take office for a long period of time thereafter. The opposition has decried Mr. Chrétien's schedule, but no avail. Only when Martinites realised they would rather capture the spoils of power sooner rather than later, have the mainstream media jumped on the bandwagon imploring Mr. Chrétien to leave before his planned departure in February 2004. Immediately, editorialists across the nation have finally opined that it is not desirable to have a lame-duck Prime Minister govern as though he were duly mandated by the people, whilst his party already have his successor picked. Clearly, Martin will not want his hands tied by endeavours enacted by Chrétien. And Chrétien will want to prolong his departure so as to ensure some sort of legacy.
It's maddening to be an opposition party duly aggrieved by the actions of the Natural Governing Party, the Liberals. To have such a monopoly on power is not ideal, yet the alternatives are pitiful as well. The Liberals realise that they are on the road to self-destruction should this self-absorbed path continue. Liberal Party President Stephen Le Drew realises that the party will probably lose power, should the Canadian people smarten up and see such abuses of power to continue. Canadians don't like to be taken for granted, and no better example of that then Bernard Lord's reduced majority in New Brunswick this past Monday. The acrimony between the party and its leader is interesting, not to say intriguing. Not since Dalton Camp's open mutiny on Tory leader John Diefenbaker, have the inner workings of a party been so dramatic. We're seeing not only backbench MPs, but the party brass itself (invariably controlled by Martin supporters) openly criticising the Prime Minister, supposedly the character that got the party into power in the first place. Ungrateful bastards, Jean Chrétien will claim. However on the other side, it is great to see Mr. LeDrew try to align himself with wonks from the opposition parties in an effort to derail legislation championed by his own leader.
There is no doubt that Paul Martin is to be the next prime minister of Canada. Sheila Copps and John Manley are pretenders to the throne, but really mere characters in this charade of a contest. Martin's been running to be Liberal leader since he lost to Chrétien in 1990. He's got it sewn up, but Liberals are loath to admit that publicly lest the public provide a substantial backlash.
One naturally has their doubts about a candidate who promises so much. Politics what it is, there is probably no wrong in assuming much of that which is promised will come up fruitless. Paul Martin talks about his desire to correct the "democratic deficit". This is an effort to win over disgruntled Liberals gagged by the whip, as well as non-aligned Canadians who'd probably support other parties. It's encouraging to see Mr. Martin realise that Canadians do not appreciate their Members of Parliament unable to address their concerns thanks to the agenda of their leaders. So if we are to assume Martin will correct that, one rightfully wonders why he hadn't done anything heretofore. If he can assail the deficit and fight the debt so strongly, then he could have done something about restoring fundamental democracy in our system. Mr. Martin, one is afraid to surmise because it would be so cynical, is spouting off promises that he would be loath to keep. What leader, in a system like ours, would want to sign off on power that's taken so long to achieve? In Mr. Martin's case it's been a multi-decade long struggle, if we consider his father's own unsuccessful attempts to wrestle the leadership of the Liberal Party.
It is easy to have a lot of hope in Paul Martin that he'll do the right thing once he becomes leader, thus prime minister. But it is also easy to harbour some scepticism in some of the promises he makes. It's fine and dandy to hope that he'll bring about dramatic changes to the governance of this country, but it is also necessary to hold his feet to the fire and begin questioning him forthwith. With this amazing and painstakingly long window before he ascends to the office of prime minister, criticising Paul Martin will only demand better governance from the man when he does finally become the country's top banana.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .