Naked Politics and a Shift In Strategy

Whether Michael Chong and his editorial board cheerleader squad approve or not, the fact is this: Most Canadians make important political choices based upon who the leader is.

Not policy, and certainly not backbench nobodies.  The leader.

And, of course, it's the role of the team to support their leader, full stop.  The role of the leader is to demonstrate they have the Confidence of the House, meaning the Leader's Party has the full confidence of the nation.

But it isn't backbench nobodies with their own mandates who shape the Leader's positions.

That'd be too risky, as the lower-tier Members have pet projects and off-topic issues they want addressed (also known as constituency concerns).  It's best the pros handle the logistical work, with Members being treated much like front-line campaign volunteers.

Keeping backbench nobodies from saying anything off-key, saying the right things in committee and filling seats when necessary is the jobs of the Whip, Senior PMO staff, so on and so forth.  They may trot out a regional member for local flavour at an even or announcement, but that's about it.  The key powers that enforce the autocratic leader's position are unelected, unaccountable to the public and they have no obligation to make themselves known.  They are the sausage makers in the backrooms.

So what happens to the nobodies, then?

"Rookie MPs are, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the day after they're elected."

Would it be at all surprising that, if leadership is an all-powerful position, people of ambition might want to overthrow the king and take the iron crown for themselves?  You have no power unless you're the boss and the current boss doesn't listen.  If the Party's doing well, then what better time is there to take the crown and preside over the existing realm?

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Chretien/Martin wars were a product of the leader-at-the-top format, as could be any tiffs that break out between James Moore, Jason Kenney and poor Stephen Harper.

It's feudal politics, it undermines and obfuscates the will of the people and diminishes our democracy.



Leaders don't listen, they dictate.

Members don't share, they message.

Constituents don't participate, they rally against.

So yes, Chong's Bill essentially wants to denude Party Leaders of their ability to be "leaders" - but in truth, how many of these "leaders" are actually bosses?  Where do their teams end, and Canadians begin?

Smart organizations are moving away from autocratic leaders and strict control of team members; they recognize that cognitive labour is motivated differently and that true leadership isn't about turning around to keep your pack in line, but charting a course forward and inspiring maximum participation from your team.

It's time for our elected representatives to stop being nobodies.  They aren't nobodies, they're our elected representatives in Parliament.  It's time we see an increase of power spread down the democratic pyramid, not increasingly consolidate at the top.

I have no reason to believe that Chong's approach is a direct attack at Harper.  In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - this is an attempt at structural change, which is critical for our institutions to survive.

Besides - it might be that the PM has already denuded himself.