November 1, 2001
By Senator Colin Kenny
What constitutes first-class political leadership? It often depends on the circumstances. I would argue that the events of Sept. 11 have altered what qualifies as first-class political leadership in Canada.
Political thinkers have debated the definition of good leadership for centuries. Most of us think of great leaders as people with charisma, who inspire, who are willing to follow their beliefs whatever the popular opinion of the day.
Edmund Burke is famous for his 1774 address to the electors of Bristol, England, in which he told them that it was his responsibility as a politician to behave according to his own noble instincts: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Several decades later the great British prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli voiced an entirely different approach: "I must follow my people. Am I not their leader?"
So which should it be? Ignore the people's will? Reflect the people's will? To some degree, I think it depends on the urgency of the moment.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, like Disraeli, listens to his citizens very carefully. This has proven to be a very smart way to govern this country. Mackenzie King knew it and hung around for a very long time. Mr. Chrétien has won three elections.
In the wake of the terrible incidents of Sept. 11, Mr. Chrétien did not behave in the way that some people with a thirst for dramatic leadership saw fit. Some Canadians wanted histrionics, and the Prime Minister wasn't providing many.
But Mr. Chrétien has a very good sense of the pulse of this nation, and he knew that Canadians, while saddened and concerned, were not in the same intense emotional state as most Americans. While Canadians had been killed, Canada had not been violated. While America had a strong military, and was used to getting its own way, Canadians had not pushed their government to maintain a strong military after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Nor were they used to getting their own way.
An Ipsos-Reid poll conducted shortly after the disasters showed showed that Canadians did want to take measures to deal with international terrorism. On the other hand, when questions were raised about whether they would want to take dramatic initiatives if, say, those might well invite attacks on Canadian soil, they had many more serious reservations than did Americans.
So do I think Jean Chrétien acted appropriately in the days that followed Sept. 11? I do. And do I think his pulse-taking approach to leadership is generally consistent with good governance in Canada? I do.
And do I think Canadian political and military leaders should continue to walk this consensual path in the coming years? I do not. I think the urgency of the times calls for Mr. Chretien, and other people of influence within the government and military of Canada, to retool.
Why? Because the polls show that Canadians are still ambivalent about gearing up for a war against terrorism. There is a sense out there that maybe this will pass us by. And if it doesn't pass us by, well, what can a small country do, anyway?
Nonsense. If we believe in Canada, we must defend Canada. My father flew during the Second World War. He was shot down. He never forgave Canadian politicians for letting Canadians' ability to fight for what we believe in go dormant between World War I and World War II. That laxity cost many young lives.
Mr. Chrétien does not always lead with his ear to the public pulse. Only a few years ago, when he decided that Quebec separatism needed to be challenged head on, he ignored both the public and his advisors and pushed through measures based on his own belief that all Canadians should have a say in the future of Quebec. Critics said all this would backfire. It has not. Support for separatism is currently at a low ebb, at least partially because Mr. Chrétien dared to march ahead of public opinion.
The prime minister should do the same now. And Canada's military leaders should start offering the government their candid advice, rather than trying to guess what the politicians want them to say.
Canada's military needs a quick infusion of $4 billion next year to beef up and adjust to non-traditional approaches to combat, and the money should be ramped up from there. Yes, it will take time to step up our military capacity to respond to the crisis at hand, but it is a pipe dream to think that this and similar crises are going to fade away.
World War I was known as "the War to End All Wars." Canadian politicians believed that, and so did the public. So we weren't ready for World War II.
There are two ways to lead. Both have some merit. But neither will work without two things: a firm grasp of history, and a inspired sense of timing.
Senator Kenny is the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee Defence and Security. He can be reached via email at kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca