Reading Update
Since my last update, I've read a J.G. Cozzens novel about an Episcopalian priest (Men and Brethren), a Maigret novel by Simenon, and made it most of the way through a kind of guide book to London (U.K.) from 1961. The last is a vicarious pleasure for one who has travelled very little, and possibly never will travel much. "Let's Go New York" was a similar experience--although I've actually been to New York.
I've got some thoughts on the Lew Archer novels which I'll post soon.
First: Today I bought a little book on Sir Robert Peel by Lord Roseberry--one Victorian Prime Minister writing on another. I'm fascinated by these characters, and their knack for summing up what they've learned in a very pithy style.
Roseberry goes back to basics and explains what a Prime Minister actually does in the British system (to a large extent adopted in Canada). "Nothing...is more remarkable than the cohesion of Cabinets, except that strange institution itself....To the inquiring foreigner...nothing can seem more extraordinary, in a country with so much of democracy about it, than the spectacle of a secret council, on the Venetian model, and sworn to absolute silence, conducting the business of a nation which insists on publicity for everything less important....The secrets of the Cabinet are, as a rule, preserved. After the sharpest internal discords the members will present a united, even if a silent and sullen, front....of all anomalous arrangements for executive government in an Anglo-Saxon community, during the present epoch and under the present conditions, the strangest is the government of the British Empire by a secret committee. That it works well, on the whole, is a tribute less to the institution itself than to the capacity of our race to make any conceivable institution succeed."
Lots of wonderful stuff in there. The last bit comes close to the chestnut "we always muddle through somehow." But it really highlights Cabinet solidarity--which in turn raises issues for the "executive" in any liberal democracy.
I'll cut the poli sci stuff short. In the U.S. Cabinet Secretaries are primarily the heads of Departments, fully accountable to Congress--especially for the budgets of those Departments. I believe a fair bit of their time is spent testifying to Congressional committees. They rarely meet as a group with the president; they are not trusted with many secrets, and it is commonly said they are not truly a Cabinet at all. After all, they'll be testifying under oath to Congress again soon.
Yet presidents need a group of people who can be trusted, and who can speak openly based on some expertise. In effect another group of people has gradually been developed to do what the Cabinet might have been intended to do. Most famously, there is a National Security Advisor to shadow the secretaries of both State and Defence; Condeleeza Rice agrees with Rumsfeld more than Powell on many issues; Powell is suspected of representing the "State" perspective.
But I wanted to get to something else from Roseberry. In Canada now we have a Prime Minister who is coming up with significant policies (gay marriage, de-criminalizing pot, campaign finance reform) which he never ran on in an election, and which he apparently has not discussed with his caucus. Yet he expects to pass legislation, with enough caucus support (he will probably squeeze them for 100% support) to pass. Some Liberal MPs are crying to the media [update: especially over gay marriage]: I'll lose my riding! This will only help the Alliance! Why won't he listen? There is an old debate about the legitimacy of this "top down" process. Shouldn't a major policy shift reflect some semblance of democratic debate?
On two occasions Peel did an about-face on the policies his (Tory) party had campaigned on. First it was Catholic Emancipation, Roman Catholic "claims," or the ending of certain "disabilities"--what we would call a lack of civil rights for Catholics. Tories had always been against these claims--it was one of the two or three positions everyone would call "Tory"--and Peel abruptly came out for them. The second time was free trade. The Tories, the party of the "old" landed gentry, favoured "protection" or tariffs, especially for food. Peel gave various hints that he was coming around to the "new" economic thinking on the issue, and then abruptly came out for Free Trade. This time, the party was smashed. Some of Peel's most prominent followers, especially Gladstone, eventually became founders of the Liberal party; Disraeli led the die-hard Tories in rebelling against Peel, and eventually led a new Conservative party which--surprise--supported free trade. The intervening decades were a fascinating time when almost every vote in the House of Commons was truly unpredictable; there were various groupings, as opposed to actual parties; loyalties shifted, with a lot of fairly serious debate about principles; and Palmerston was able to dominate the scene with his intelligence, among other qualities.
How could Peel make major policy decisions his own elected members did not support? When Disraeli himself did something similar years later, he said "First pass the bill and then turn out the Ministry." Roseberry quotes this with satisfaction, if not approval, and I love the ruthlessness of it. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean a Prime Minister is thinking only of himself or his place in history; he may be putting country before party.
Update: Roseberry is harsher to Peel than I have implied. He says that even if Peel can be excused for the first occasion, the same excuse cannot be used for the second: "Granted that he was right in the first transition, he should not have repeated it: the character of public men cannot stand two such shocks."
On the first issue, the Catholic claims, Roseberry concludes that Peel mistakenly believed that he had to remain in office in order to pass the bill he (suddenly) wanted. In fact, however, he could have helped the bill more out of office. It seems that Peel actually liked being in office, "for the highest motives," more than he would admit.
On the second issue, free trade, Roseberry says: "Our view is that Peel did not exhaust the alternatives before returning to office...In any case we hold that it was Peel's duty to try every conceivable and inconceivable combination to obviate the necessity of his remaining minister, and so lowering the standard of English public life." Then Roseberry softens this conclusion; it is not "possible to judge him hardily." "If he deceived himself, he deceived himself nobly, and he wrought an immortal work." Peel was punished in the short term by losing his party and career; in the longer term he was much beloved by the people.
For Chretien, there is really no opposition to turn things over to; no one expects our leaders to be scrupulous about their honour as long as cabinet solidarity holds. The biggest question is: what is progress? We usually think there has been economic progress, for all or almost all, in Western countries since the Middle Ages; progress in equality of opportunity since the Industrial Revolution; progress in using government to stabilize the economy and provide for "special" needs, since the early 20th century. And social progress? Freedom from the old taboos? Is there a straightforward kind of progress in that area as well?
|
