How Not To Judge Our Leaders

There's a strong tendency among all of us as Liberals right now to criticize so much of the party's ruling elite, some of it unfair, other portions bang-on. Something of a "revolt of the grassroots" is evolving, not without merit, but often with a collective bias unworthy of our great traditions. Whatever else transpires in the next four years, if those fighting for a more relevant Liberal party in the various regions of the country are not permitted better access to the decision-making structure then there won't be much of a party left. Nevertheless, many in these grassroots offered little assistance during the last campaign, often opting to sit distant from the national happenings like some modern-day Jonah waiting for the judgment. It surely came, but in part because of a debilitating attitude towards the party leadership that proved almost fatal in its outcome.I watched with interest as many of the party elites remained above the fray while leader Michael Ignatieff headed in the other direction, visiting hundreds of communities across the country attempting to reconnect the party with its base. I witnessed it up-close and personal and it was energizing. If we desire true renewal of the party, we won't get it by blindly casting aspersions at people leading the party as though they were exclusively at fault.I perused through Peter Newman's ruminations about Ignatieff, as reported in the Globe and Mail a couple of days ago, initially with mild interest and then with a certain sense of alarm. The great godfather of political journalism in Canada had somehow stretched his assumptions so far that the resulting caricature of Michael Ignatieff was not close to reality. I'm not saying this just as a person who cared for Ignatieff but one who was also a witness to his evolving leadership of the party and the personal journey that ensued.It's not hard to agree with Newman's conclusion that Ignatieff, "thought if he loved the country enough it would love him back, and it doesn't work that way." So true, as so many other Canadian leaders can attest. "I have wonderful material," he recounts to the Globe's Jane Taber and it will all likely turn into a fascinating read.Except it might not be accurate. He concludes that the past Liberal leader, having witnessed genocide first-hand, could do little about what he observed and so developed a yen for some kind of redemption from personal guilt. The author extrapolated for there to say that Ignatieff then turned to politics to deal with his personal demons.That's when the alarm bells went off in my head. I saw a lot of Michael Ignatieff and not all of it was on official business. We dined together, had lengthy talks in various parts of the country about the Canada he wanted to lead, and talked openly of our desire to make this world a better place through Canadian influence. That was a five-year process and not once in any of that time did I sense Ignatieff seeking redemption - not once. I have also worked extensively with Romeo Dallaire and former justice minister Irwin Cotler, who both witnessed and attempted to function within genocidal actions around the world. None of us felt this about Michael and we had far greater access than Newman did, and on a practical level.In truth, one of my great frustrations in the last couple of years was watching others seek to focus Ignatieff's attention solely on domestic matters, which the leader went along with. A man driven by guilt and the need for redemption doesn't put such things aside as he seeks leadership - the horrors of such historic realities as genocide simply can't be parcelled away somewhere. No, Ignatieff did what many involved Canadians do in genocidal zones around the world: he observed the horrors and came away believing that the world needs more of Canada. An obvious conclusion driven by patriotism and hardly by the need for penance.I have met and even interviewed many over the years who have endured genocidal actions and I can spot guilt for a lack of personal action a mile away. Did Ignatieff wish he could have done more? Absolutely, as have all of us. But he was hardly haunted by it to the point of self-obsession and guilt. I recall on a couple of occasions waiting for meetings with Ignatieff in his office and seeing Newman emerge with his famous hat in hand and thinking, "I hope he get's Michael right." Well, he didn't, at least not on this point. Newman is a modern Shakespeare, seeking his Hamlet in modern events. He excels in describing the humanity of modern leaders, especially if they have an aura of tragedy in them. On this one he journeyed too far in his desire to turn a great intellectual into a flawed creature of personal guilt.This is what all of us desiring to reshape the Liberal party for the future must avoid. Michael Ignatieff, in his own fashion, attempted to draw the party back to Canadian communities. Nothing tragic about that, only common sense. Liberals need to wrest some power and decision-making away from the elites, but not by projecting stereotypes in the process.