For You, Michael

Michael Ignatieff and I have enjoyed many discussions about politics and we've come to the conclusion that it's not the easiest of fits for either of us.  Reflective, and at times brooding, we nevertheless inherently understand that our compassion for the human condition is perhaps better leveraged by serving in the Canadian Parliament than assisting at the food bank each day or visiting the Kurdish victims in Iraq.  So, we stick it out.The similarities pretty well stop there.  The seeds are there for him to be a first-rate parliamentarian and a well-respected world leader.  It's impressive just to watch him work his way through a problem, examining it from all directions.So, far be it for me to offer him any kind of advice.  Nevertheless, there are certain directions I hope he takes that will perhaps fulfill some of the hopes that have been penned in previous entries of this blog.In the House of Commons today, non-partisanship is seen as something of a weakness after years of polarization between parties and regions in Canada.  Yet for more than a century the ability to work cooperatively with other parties has resulted in some of our greatest accomplishments as a country.  It didn't mean that partisanship never existed - it was present since the beginning and in many ways kept us from developing a one-party state.  But it was often overpowered by cooperation and consensus.Former American senator Alan Simpson said in a speech, "He who travels the high road of humility in Washington will not be troubled by heavy traffic."  It matters not how intelligent or crafty a leader is, if there isn't a strong dose of modesty, of understanding the need of others to assist in fulfilling a vision, then being smart will only make one more partisan and therefore limited in working Parliament to a successful outcome.Voters in Canada now want less crossfire and more ceasefire.  Crossfire kills innocents and that partly explains the historic low voter turnouts in recent years. The public is looking for performance not petty partisanship.  A new leader could provide that.  A leader capable of forging a consensus instead of waging a war would prove a welcome break on the Canadian scene.  He could read the signs of the non-partisan wave rising south of the border, realize that the desire for something similar resides in Canadians and ride that wave to a healthier Canadian political life.At times like now (perhaps especially now), voters will be looking for the most competent and least dogmatic leader.  They will be looking for a candidate open to new ideas, who can unite the country.  They will be attracted to the one whose message is about competence, not ideology.  That leader should view hyper-partisanship as not a strategy to campaign on but an issue to campaign against. Partisanship is not about principle but power.  A good leader would turn that on its head.  He could campaign as the common ground candidate, not the Liberal or Conservative option.In times of minority parliaments, the chances of passing legislation are slim because votes are required from the other sides if it is to be passed in the House.  What will draw Canadian and centrist voters to a common ground candidate is a commitment to common ground governing.  It means meeting the other parties at the table in an honest effort to work out solutions on issues that can't be ignored.  No one will get everything they want, but by staying consistently at the table they will get Canadians what they ultimately need.  A good leader will know that common ground is not an end but a means - a way of forging a national consensus.Canadian voters nearly always elect a prime minister who responds to the flaws they have found in the predecessor - Mulroney's broad coalition over Turner's inability to forge consensus in his own caucus; Chretien's "little man from Shawinigan" over Mulroney's arrogance, etc.  A new Liberal leader who puts aside hyper-partisanship for the public good would continue this pattern, providing a clear alternative to Stephen Harper's hard-nosed style of governing.A prime minister who chooses compromise will inevitably confront obstruction from people in other parties and discontent from the ideologues in his own.  These are formidable obstacles to a more inclusive and productive kind of politics.  As the Harper era has shown however, leaders that divide in Canadian politics rarely conquer.Michael Ignatieff could provide that kind of leadership, despite those obstacles.  He could instinctively comprehend what James Travers of the Toronto Star wrote last week: "Parliament isn't nasty because politicians are nasty; politicians are nasty because Parliament doesn't work."  By realizing that leading is ultimately about modesty and competence in the tradition of Lester Pearson, Mr. Ignatieff could finally provide Canadians the stability and professionalism they have been looking for.  He could heal Parliament.For what it's worth, Michael.