According to the Conservative narrative, the job of the Prime Minister is to run the country and there is ample evidence to suggest that the omnipresent Stephen Harper has tried to do just that. He is unquestionably the one in charge, the one who makes virtually all important decisions and brooks no dissent, the one who (with the help of his appointees in the PMO) has reduced Conservative MPs to almost total subservience and constrained public servants from discussing issues – or even their own published papers – when their expert views fail to support the ideological bent of the Conservative Party. The Prime Minister has increasingly used omnibus bills and closure motions to make a mockery of the legitimate role of opposition parties in scrutinizing government legislation. The job of Prime Minister, as practiced by Stephen Harper, is to run the country like his personal fiefdom.
The Prime Minister is the leader of a parliamentary democracy
A Prime Minister’s job can also be described quite differently, if it functioned within the traditional parameters of Canada’s parliamentary democracy. Instead of running the country single-handedly, a Prime Minister would be one of a number of players – albeit the most powerful one. Instead of a system in which one person makes almost all the decisions, we would have – in a functioning parliamentary democracy – a system in which many are involved in decision-making.
In such a system, it would be the Cabinet, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, which would establish priorities and decide on legislative initiatives. It would do so on the basis of extensive consultation, especially with the elected members of the governing party, and after receiving research, reports, and recommendations from the experts in the civil service. Cabinet Ministers would introduce legislation in Parliament expecting the opposition parties to suggest changes and amendments. There would be an assumption that the opposition parties at least occasionally have worthwhile suggestions that ought to be incorporated into the legislation as it is being passed.
In such a governing system, which Canada supposedly still has, there is no need – indeed, there is no place – for a Prime Minister whose strength is an ability to dominate totally and make all important decisions. Instead, the system operates on the presumption of some degree of collegial decision making. Rather than deciding alone, a Prime Minister can be guided and assisted by the input, advice, recommendations, and suggestions that arise from the members of the Cabinet, the members of the party caucus, the experts in the public service, the ideas generated from the opposition benches, and the views and concerns expressed by the Canadian people. Such a process can be slow at times and require periodic compromise, but that is a price we should be willing to pay for having a democracy.
Finding the right person for the job
In the democracy that I have been describing, the leader who is not up to the job is the one who is unwilling to accept and honour our long established parliamentary principles and practices. The leader who is up to the job is one who is consultative and inclusive, open to the views of others, willing to learn from the wealth of ideas, experience, and expertise generated within our system, and respectful of the legitimate role of Parliament. When you are asked this fall whether a particular leader is up to the job of Prime Minister, ask yourself what job you want the Prime Minister to perform. Canada has had almost 10 years of a one man band. Is it time we chose someone who will act instead as leader of an orchestra?