Leadership or not.

Well here we are, Election Eve. I am just getting this post in under the wire. If you recall, I started writing this series of essays because I was tired of debating minutae with people online. The details of why I did or did not like this particular party, or leader, or policy. Well it is good to dig into the details, but what I found was that the arguments people put forward often seemed to me to reflect poorly integrated values. Like, "we support cancelling the Long Form Census because it is in invasion of privacy", and then in the next breath defending very intrusive (and unsupervised) powers of investigation for security services. Well, do you believe in privacy or not? Under what circumstances? And so on. I think a lot of people are just supporting the party they "currently believe in" without taking the time to reflect and see whether or not that party actually aligns with their own personally held principles. I believe this happens because a lot of people never open up their mental closet of principles, haul them out, shake off the dust and have a close look at what they believe and why. And I think you should.

So I have been writing these posts with a dual purpose. To encourage you, my very appreciated reader, to take out your concepts of government and think about them. At a high level, and without considering a party or policy. Figure out what  you expect from Government, and Leaders. The second purpose is that in writing these posts, I have been doing this myself. Not the first time for me, but as we grow we learn, and it was high time I had another look at what I believed, so that I could hope to make a good choice at the polls tomorrow. Or at least an informed one. Not just informed of the policies and character put forward by our politicians, but informed as to my own expectations as well.

Which brings me to the last one. I don't think that policy and promises are everything. In the course of a government's life many things will happen that are not forseen at the election. Recessions come and go, trade disputes erupt, trade deal opportunities materialize, wars, crime, scandal, it is all going to happen. So I want to choose someone who has, I hope, an approach to dealing with these issues with the way I want my representative to deal with them. First I must realize that there is no hope that my representative or PM will react as I expect in every situation. But will they listen? Will they listen to the electorate at a time in their mandate when they KNOW we will forget by the next election?

How can you know?

Well you can't, not completely. Politician images are carefully managed, and most especially during election times. But you can use a very simple technique - you can look at someone's record. What they said, how they voted. You have to use caution, because politics is a rough "game" people love to circulate misquotes and things taken out of context. Here's the thing though - it is usually very easy to check and find the original quote. Through the miracle of internet search engines, it is often possible to go back and get the full interview, find more parts of the story, and decide for yourself if that quote really represents what was meant. The Kim Campbell example I used in my first government blog post is an excellent example of this. PM Campbell was trying to express the fact they in the short, sharp fury of an election campaign, it is effectively impossible to reach a good, reasonable solution (including, especially a compromise solution). She "summed up" a much longer, and very reasonable explanation with "an election is no time to discuss serious issues" - which is of course the bit that was quoted and spread like wild fire. It is worth wondering, who was spreading the misquote? Who stood to gain?

It is difficult to discern and research these things during an election too - the truth will out, but it often takes some time. Not least because there are some places where a politician simply cannot win. When a politician changes his mind on an issue (often because a public outcry against their original stance) she runs the risk of being labelled for "flip flopping". Of being wishy washy. However, if the politician stands their ground, they risk being labelled as someone who doesn't listen to or respect the will of the People. How can you tell? Well for one thing, if you follow politics more often than just during an election campaign, you can see examples throughout that time which gives you a much better basis that a 40 or 80 day election campaign.

So the character of your chose candidate should be something of importance, and in my mind, also their leadership.

Leadership, it is not just giving direction. Leadership is about far more that telling the helmsman which way to steer, or taking the credit when things go well. A real leader inspires, and persuades. The show the way, by example. Indeed. most of the Leaders I've had the good fortune to work for, or with are free in sharing credit (where it is due) and quick to stand up and take responsibility for their team's errors (and all people and teams make errors - get used to it).

A Leader doesn't just implement an agenda, in effect telling people what they want. The best leaders have a goal or direction in mind, they articulate and persuade - but they also listen, adjusting their goal or direction in order to draw more people to that vision, while keeping in mind the constraints that restrict the direction. They are transparent, because they want people to want to come along.

A great example of this is Naheed Nenshi, Mayor of Calgary, who today posted a wonderful column in the Globe and Mail. It is not a short or easy read, why should it be? He's addressing a complex and important issue. So he does it justice, drawing on his personal experience, and his abilities as a communicator (crucial in a good politician) to get his point across. Agree or don't agree with him, but at least he makes a case, not a slogan. You can see it here.

If that all sounds a little idealistic, well it is. No leader will ever live up to all of that perfectly, but some try harder than others. There is a world of difference between leaders who manage their message through soundbites, repeated ad nauseaum as advertising, or as "talking points" by other members of the political team. And that's a legitimate part of a strategy of getting a message out. It is not legitimate when those talking points are used to ignore or deflect debate on serious questions or issues raised in debate. I always ask myself, do I really want to be represented by someone who, when questioned, never responds to the question? It strikes me as dishonest.

Why is that dishonest, well I view my MP, Cabinet Ministers and the PM as *employees*. My employees. The government I believe in is there to create that security so that I, and my family and friends and colleagues can go about our lives and careers in a reasonable and productive fashion - without undue disruption by people seeking to take advantage of society. To provide a social safety net (economic, physical, etc.). To do so in an economically efficient manner. To invest in the future of our society. For all these things I pay my taxes. See that, I PAY for these services, and because I am an "owner" of this society, that means I'm not just a customer, I'm a shareholder.

Which brings me to my last point before the election. Voting is not a privilege. In a democracy, voting is a duty. It is not only my tax dollars are work and at risk, it is yours too. Ours. If you don't vote (and I honestly don't care who you vote for) then you let down the side.

I work in Project Management and it is a real truism for us that "what gets measured gets done". Which is another way of saying that we go around holding people accountable. Sure some people are self starting and don't need to be watched in order to make their deadlines. I'm not one of them. I need to be held accountable - this is not a flaw, it is just human nature. Most of us need some pressure, some deadline, some knowledge of consequence if we fail to complete our task.

Voting is how we do that for politicians and government. I wrote earlier about the concentration of power in the PMO, how MPs are often "whipped" to support the government policy, sometimes against the wishes of their constituents or even their own beliefs. That's not great, but it is still not a disaster because you and me, gentle voter, can still hold government to account every four or five years. But that only works if we *all* get out and vote. If you have too few people voting, it becomes easier for politicians to practice "wedge politics" - where a policy is put in place favouring a small group that tend to vote as a block (or to pick on groups that other groups don't like, to achieve the same effect). In short, when a large fraction of the population doesn't vote, it becomes very possible to have small interests take control of the National (or Provincial, or Civic) agenda because they manage to mobilize and swing the election.

So get out and vote. It doesn't take a lot of time, it is surprisingly satisfying, and damnit, you owe it to me, to yourself, to every fellow Canadian.
And those still to come.

I hope these essays have helped you to focus on what it is you really expect from your government. I hope you have found your way to reliable internet information on the candidates and parties and what they stand for. Good luck! Choose well!