Asymmetric Management and the Leadership Deficit
In usual fashion, Paul Martin addressed last week’s Kashechewan water crisis by pulling out all the stops and promising to get to the bottom of things immediately. Clearly, he is going to be very, very committed to improving the quality of life for First Nations in Kashechewan. Little did you know: his reaction to the Kashechewan situation was a perfect microcosm of his brand of asymmetric federalism. After the federal government announced a sizable wad of cash to evacuate and rebuild Kashechewan, I predicted that a number of other reserves would come forward requesting a similar deal. It smelled exactly like Martin’s New Deal with the provinces; when the Kashechewan dust settled, I was absolutely correct in my prediction.
I’m not saying that other First Nation groups aren’t in need of help. That’s a whole other issue that I will not address here. However, Martin’s asymmetric approach to Kashechewan represents a fundamental management style that I find extremely unattractive. Is Martin’s asymmetric management part of his over-arching invisible hand approach to federal-provincial relations? Or, is it because reacting to public crises is just easier in the short term when approaching the problem asymmetrically? Further, is it because Paul Martin really has no grand vision of Canada and asymmetric management represents an easy way out? My guess is that it’s a combination of the three.
Paul Martin has always been a fine manager. He has brokered deals with the provinces in many sticky situations. He has been thorny and unrelenting with the United States on softwood lumber. My problem is the severe leadership deficit in Paul Martin’s government: instead of standing firm against the provinces and coming up with a New Deal that respects regional cleavages within a framework of a larger, federal vision, Martin chose the short-term easy way out and gave everyone exactly what they wanted. Likewise, instead of proactively architecting a series of changes to improve the quality of First Nations everywhere, Martin chose to react on a case-by-case basis.
Allan Gregg discusses Canada’s current leadership deficit in June’s Walrus in a piece called “A Return To The Politics Of Ideas.” He attributes the deficit to a number of factors (ironically, he named the expanded role of public opinion polls in shaping party policy as a key factor), but I agree with him most strongly on his discussion that we are currently devoid of any politician with a grand vision of Canada and strong leadership capabilities. Paul Martin was supposed to be a leader, but he didn’t deliver. He’s nothing more than a manager. So, throughout the entire political spectrum, we are yearning for some “politics of ideas” and a real leader to follow up on those ideas. I’m not holding my breath.
Now that would be ideal. I could have cake and eat it. Mmmm cake.
7 Comments
Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]