Chretien: Lame Duck?
My first reaction to Chretien’s news yesterday was to think about whether or not he could become a lame duck. I wondered whether there was a parallel between what I had seen happen in the US during the end of Clinton’s presidency, and our system of government in Canada. My initial reaction was to say that this would be less likely here, because the system of government is so different. There aren’t three sets of decision makers — the house, the senate, and the president — that legislation has to move past before it can be enacted. As the papers this morning point out, however, he can easily become a lame duck if the leadership contenders spend too much time campaigning. Chretien’s strategy seems to be to keep them busy with high profile pieces of legislation — Kyoto, aboriginal rights, and so on.
This prolonged, American style leadership race is a dangerous strategy that could easily backfire. Chretien has foolishly embarked on an ambitious agenda of "legacy making" pieces of legislation. However, between now and February 2003:
- the divisions and internal politicking in the Liberal Party will become more pronounced, not less. His announcement yesterday simply kicked off the leadership race.
- the country could go to war, if the US pushes forward with their plans for Iraq.
- the economy of Canada, which is in pretty good shape, could go sour. Chretien wouldn’t be remembered as the guy who’s goverment balanced the budget, anymore. What a great opening for the right of center parties!
His vanity, and his pathological desire to deny Paul Martin the chance to be Prime Minister, have caused him to take a huge risk.
The time is ripe, if the PC’s can get their act together, to begin the campaign to unseat the Liberals in the next election, which we now know will be at least two years off. This weekend in Edmonton, the Conservatives should set a convention date, since we now know that the scenario Joe Clark held out as a possibility (snap election by the Liberals) isn’t going to happen.
There were lots of articles in the papers this morning, with many viewpoints. Of all, though, I thought this commentary from Claude Ryan, former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, was the best. Chretien has made severals references to his mandate over the last little while. Ryan is right in that under the Canadian system, a Prime Minister does not have a mandate. He is simply the leader of the party in the House of Commons that has won the most seats in an election.
