Somewhere in the lead-up to this election there was talk that it would be about “leadership”. And indeed, polling specialist such as Nanos Research regularly report on each party leader’s “Leadership Index”, ensuring that this question remains on the election agenda, much, I think, like gum stuck to the bottom of a shoe.
Point 1: What on earth is “leadership”?
My first problem with “leadership” is that I can’t for the life of me figure out what it means, at least insofar as this election goes. Nanos Research states that to establish its leadership ratings it interviews 1,200 people over three days, asking those interviewed to rate leaders on the “issues of trust, competence, and vision for Canada”.
Of these three, only the first, the issue of trust makes any sense to me. Presumably, it is very basic: I trust (or do not trust) the leader to not cheat me when making change, and to not lie to me about anything important. If I were married to this leader, I would not expect to come home and find another woman (or man) in our bed.
The other two, “competence” and “vision for Canada”, are more difficult. They are the sort of terms familiar to anyone who has ever suffered through a performance review at work. They are usually accompanied by lists of supporting evidence; under “competence” we might find something like “Understands the respective responsibilities of Government and Parliament”, while under “vision for Canada”, we might have “Presents a clear, consistent and well-articulated description of what s/he wants this country to be like”.
As I have never been polled for my views on leadership, I do not know if pollsters do ask these sorts of questions. What I do know is that I can’t seem to find answers to these questions when I hear and watch our party leaders, to say nothing of when they are presented in the media.
It is quite possible, of course, that I’m missing something in the fine print somewhere.
Point 2: The world is too full of leaders.
A friend who came to Canada from England about a decade ago recently remarked that, as he recalls, “leadership” as an election issue began with Margaret Thatcher. Before that, he noted, we elected men and women, not to lead us, but to serve us.
I have no trouble with leadership in business or sports, for instance, which are not democratic institutions. I admire and cheer Daniel Alfredsson when he alone stays in the game, skates down the ice and pots one, long after his team has abandoned the fight. I may or may not agree with how or where my boss leads his company, but it is his company and not mine. I am free to leave.
In politics, however, this business of “leadership” always makes me more than a little uncomfortable. Every time I hear the word in this context or see a party leader posturing to appear leader-like, I can’t but think of Kim Jong-il, Supreme Leader of his happy people, Muammar Gaddafi, Leader and Guide of his happy people, and various other individuals who in this and the last century were or are known to their happy people simply as the “Leader”, or some variation thereof.
Point 3: Democracy is and should remain messy.
Democracy is a cumbersome and messy way to run a country. It is, to recall Winston Churchill, “the worst sort of government except for all the others”. It is so cumbersome and messy because it attempts to use the experience, knowledge and wisdom of everyone in a society to articulate our often contradictory wishes and implement laws for our mutual and common good.
Democracy requires exceptional men and women: men and women who can lead, certainly, but who can also listen, reflect, negotiate, compromise, admit error, and learn.
“Leadership” implies none of these qualities. It implies a leader and followers. It implies dominance and obedience. And if recent history is to be believed, it implies failure. For no matter how decisive, intelligent and insightful a leader, he or she is only one person, frail and flawed and limited in understanding.
If we care about our country and our future, we may do well to think and talk less about leadership, and more about the concrete issues our country faces — and there are many.
No comments:
Post a Comment