what, besides representing a particular demographic, determines if a cabinet minister is worth supporting and defending in the all-important viewpoint of the Prime Minister’s Office?
Once somebody becomes a political liability, under the bus he goes. But as long as he can effectively communicate the government’s message, and any foibles or problems can be handled with spin, the minister is considered a valued member of the team. In fact, effective communications skills have displaced superior management and leadership skills as the qualities of primary importance, as the cabinet has been reduced to the most important asset in the government’s communications arsenal.
It is the difference between statesmanship and salesmanship. A statesman will tell you the truth; a salesman will tell you want you want to hear. A statesman will acknowledge good points in opponents and their arguments. A salesman will embellish the product he is trying to sell and be dismissive of alternatives. A statesman will point out both sides of an argument; a salesman will show you the beautiful backyard and hope you don’t notice the cracks in the foundation. A statesman will tell you how much it will cost to fix the faulty foundation. A salesman will try to convince you can fix it with silicon filler and a coat of paint.
We have far too many salesman and far too few statesmen amongst our political elites. But if you accept the premise that even the cabinet ministers are largely removed from a centrally controlled decision-making structure, it is clear that there is no other role for them other than that of pitchman for their bosses at the PMO.
Notable exceptions exist, but the predominant role of the present-day Canadian cabinet minister is less that of policy maker and administrator than party loyalist and front-line communications messenger. To the list of ministerial monikers (Minister, Honourable, Privy Councillor) should also be added the rapidly developing predominant role of “Communister.”
6.
Party Discipline: You are there to Support the Team
In one of my favourite episodes of my favourite sitcom Seinfeld, Jerry comes into possession of four playoff hockey tickets for a game between the New York Rangers and the New Jersey Devils. With George taking a pass on the game to impress a new girlfriend, Elaine asks her Devils fan boyfriend, David Putty, to attend. However, when they are getting ready to leave, Elaine discovers that her enthusiastic hockey fan date has painted his face in the colours of the Devils — bright red and green.
When she asks the face painter why he looks as he does, Putty replies with eyes squinted, “You gotta support the team.”
An incredulous Elaine exclaims, “Well you can’t go out looking like that.”
Undeterred and unfazed, Putty inquires,“Why not?”
Exasperated, Elaine replies, “Because it’s insane!”
David Putty would make a great and valued member of the Conservative Party of Canada, or any other House of Commons caucus. Indeed, for modern Canadian caucuses, loyalty to the team and a desire to impress teammates and leaders are not only valued qualities, they are qualities that are seemingly valued above all others. Blind loyalty is valued over constructive criticism, and certainly over the ability to speak truth to power. These realities are certainly beneficial for promoting team and caucus solidarity. They have a negative effect, however, on an individual MP’s self-esteem and are ultimately detrimental to both democracy and to good decision-making.
I have previously stated, somewhat famously, that backbenchers of the governing party like to think of themselves as part of the government. They are not.[1] Under our constitutional convention of responsible government, the executive is accountable to the legislature. But the executive is not the legislative caucus of the governing party. The executive is the prime minister and his handpicked ministers of the Crown. Each minister heads, and is responsible for, a department of the permanent government bureaucracy. Since parliamentary secretaries answer questions in the House when their minister is absent and are frequently dispatched to the cable political news shows to defend the government, PSs must, by extension, be deemed to be part of the executive/government. However, the rest of the legislative caucus of the governing party is not part of the government. As MPs, their role should be to serve their constituents by holding the government to account. In theory this could involve occasionally voting against the government.
The government (ministers and parliamentary secretaries) are bound by two-line whips (instructions from party leadership) during votes. However, backbenchers, at least theoretically, are supposed to be allowed to vote independently on all but three-line whips. The convention of cabinet solidarity requires that a minister (or parliamentary secretary) must always support the government position when voting, or in public, or resign from his or her position. No similar doctrine of caucus solidarity exists, although an imposed one has been rapidly evolving.
I am always amused when Conservative backbenchers refer to “our government.” Again, backbenchers are not part of the government. However, sitting in the Commons, one frequently hears a member’s statement that begins, “Mr. Speaker, our government’s number one priority is job creation,” or something similar. Equally common are planted questions, delivered during Question Period, that begin with the same premise. A question such as, “Can the Minister of Finance comment on our government’s recent positive employment statistics?” is founded on the same false premise: that a backbench MP from the governing party is part of the government.
Even more troubling than these statements and questions, though, is the practice of Conservative backbenchers attending photo opportunities that are masquerading as government funding announcements, occasionally with novelty oversized cheques. “Our government is pleased to support the community through this important investment in infrastructure,” the backbencher will proclaim. The necessary implication, conveyed to the local media, is that the local MP was somehow responsible for obtaining the investment for his constituents. The reality is that the decision was made by a bureaucrat and then approved by a regional minister, both of whom are part of the government, which the announcing MP is not.
An interesting aside: I am no longer involved in making government funding announcements, even within the boundaries of my riding, Edmonton-St. Albert. It has been deemed more “appropriate” that a Conservative MP from a neighbouring constituency make the announcement. This is a blatant attempt by the government to indulge in partisan advertising using public tax dollars; the appreciative recipients of the funding announcement are supposed to believe that the grant came from the Conservative government (or the Harper government, as it is more often termed), when the reality is that the funds are courtesy of the Canadian government.
Two very odd and symbiotic sociological trends help to foster the belief in the desirability and necessity of this “team player-ship.” The first is the desire, sometimes the need, to belong. I cannot adequately explain why members of caucus place such emphasis on the importance of being part of the team. Perhaps it is the isolation and loneliness of being marooned in Ottawa and away from family and friends for half of the calendar year. Maybe it is the constant reminders from party leadership that politicians win as a team and they lose as a team. Ralph Klein frequently would borrow a hockey analogy and remind his caucus that you play for the logo on the front of the sweater and not the name on the back. Whatever the reason or combination of factors at play, there is great emphasis on the notion that “you gotta support the team.”
The second factor is that the party leadership unequivocally encourages all members and supporters of the government to think of themselves as members of the team. You would think that ego and arrogance would result in leaders and ministers regarding their governmental club with some sense of exclusivity. However, just the opposite is true. Why?
It serves the interests of the leadership to have all caucus members, and, in fact, all party members, think of themselves as part of, and contributing to, the team. Caucus members are more likely to defend the government’s record and party messaging, and donors are more likely to send the party financial support if they are made to feel that they are a part of it all.
The