Canadian Political Leadership at the Millennium

Canadian Political Leadership at the Millennium As citizens of a mid-sized country, Canadians are prone to admire the political leaders of larger countries more than their own. Their leaders - whether because ofinternational presence or media coverage - appear to be larger than life. Pierre Trudeau was an exception to this tendency but, for good or bad, he was admired more from a distance than at home. This tendency to discount our political leadership has been exacerbated by the general decline in deference in recent times as well as by the widespread mistrust of politicians that developed at the end of the postwar boom. This is unfortunate. Notwithstanding the continued assault on politics as a profession, Canadian politics offers an interesting array ofleaders. Moreover, Canadaconfronts numerous bedeviling social andeconomic issues whose resolution requires political leadership to trigger and shape public debate and participation. Like citizens around the world, Canadians become impatient with politicians when they do not "deliver the goods." Earlier this century, two ofthe greatest social scientists - Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter - offered divergent models of political leadership that resonate at the century's closing. Weber presented the "charismatic" political leader, whose primary role was to use passion and imagination (irrationality) as an animating political force to withstand the disenchanting and rationalizing forces of technology. Schumpeter, on the other hand, urged a politics of discipline, to ensure that popular expectations did not overwhelm the democratic process and its capacity to "deliver the goods," thereby undermining the legitimacy of the democratic process. These thoughts have been stimulated by two recent developments - the resignation ofFrank McKenna as Premier of New Brunswick and the transformation of Stephane Dion from professor to national unity minister. I should note that I was a classmate ofthe former and a working colleagueofthe latter- and in both cases think proudly ofthem as fellow Political Scientists. McKenna had a remarkable stint as Premier. Electorally, he batted one thousand and he kept his promise to stay in office no longer than a decade. He pitched New Brunswick into the economic development limelight and innovated and succeeded in many policy areas. He animated the province's political discourse and public life. His tireless energy, boyish enthusiasm and unflagging optimism provided a muchneeded contrast to the long-faced neo-conservatism ofthe times.In this,he followed Weber's prescription and, indeed, McKenna often displayed real charismatic qualities . But, following Schumpeter, he did nottilt at windmills, particularly on the economic front, accepting and working within the economic straitjacket set by a globalization agenda not of his making. His was an effective leadership melange, combining Weber's charismatic, passionate, dream-inspiring leadership qualities with Schumpeter's pragmatic, expectations-limiting disciplinary requirements. Journal ofCanadian Studies Vol. 32, No. 3 (Automne 1997 Fall) 3 While McKenna seemed destined to become Premier (andbeyond?), StephaneDion found himself in a Mittyesque situation - a political scientist asked to operationalize and practise what he had been preaching academically. I must admit that I was a touch sceptical au debut about his appointment- as I would have been about any political scientist cast into this or a similar role. Generally, academics make poor politicians: they think rather than act in a world ofabstractuniversals and don't have to worry about consequences. Politicians are men and women ofaction, who live in a world ofconcrete particularities whereconsequences are everything. At first blush, Dion seemed to fit this worrisome mould. A classic Cartesian thinker, he can be irritatingly (over)rational at times. But, at this particular moment in Canada's history when myths and anxieties mix too easily with fact and accomplishment in heated political discourse - Dion may very well be a man for this season, as his amusing and brutally effective exchange of letters with Quebec Deputy-Premier Bernard Landry demonstrated recently. In this he has shown real Schumpeterian qualities, particularly in his honest political discourse with Canadian citizens. Interestingly and surprisingly to some-Dion has demonstrated and articulated a real passion and love for this country - that borders on Weberian discourse. This has gone well beyond being intellectually attached to an effectively working construct called Canada. Whether this passion reflects on-the-job training or an untapping of academically contained emotions - Dion has...