Chretien and Martin
This has been the weekend of the national Liberal convention in Toronto; Jean Chretien's official adieu (although I believe he has still not set the date he will actually step down as PM); and Martin's victory as leader (pre-ordained by the one member, one vote system).
Last Saturday when Chretien was on the front page of the Star, I said to my wife "the old bugger," and she said something like "exactly." He's tough, often totally unforgiving of anyone who crosses him. A minor example from Frank magazine (new issue not yet on line): at a recent state dinner in Ottawa for Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, Joe Clark and his wife were deliberately seated far from the head table, and were not even able to get in the receiving line to shake hands with the guest of honour. Clark is a former Prime Minister, and a former External Affairs minister who took a leading role in opposing apartheid. He was until recently leader of the Progressive Conservative party--his second stint in that position. Frank speculates that Chretien has never forgiven Clark for scoring political points over Chretien's apparent improprieties in in "Shawinigate."
Chretien has hung on longer than many people expected. He has admitted he only stayed to lead the party in the 2000 election because he was irritated at Martin's obvious moves to prepare to take over. "'Some wanted me to go, so I stayed. That's as simple as that. So I'm grateful.
"'Otherwise I would have left at the end of 2000. Now I will leave between now and the 29th of February,' Chretien said, laughing as he continued to elude questions on his departure date."
In an interview he made it clear that it was a particular meeting of Martin supporters in Toronto in 2000 that angered him.
He has always made it clear he dislikes Martin, or has a kind of contempt for him. Here is a Globe and Mail piece from yesterday:
"Why did he do it? Why did he so compromise his legacy? One person close to the Prime Minister maintains that Mr. Chretien is worried about the future of the party under Paul Martin. He believes his successor lacks political judgment, that his hysterical claim during the referendum crisis that separation would cost Quebec a million jobs was the tip of a larger, lethal, iceberg of bad political instincts. Another senior Chretien adviser put it more simply: 'They are two men who dislike each other very much.'"
Back in '90, as my late father used to say, Martin favoured the Meech Lake Accord, at a time when Chretien officially thought adoption of the Accord into the Constitution would threaten the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Later, as PM, Chretien brought about the "social union," accepting many of the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord--Quebec a distinct society, yet all provinces equal--without giving them constitutional status.
By any conventional standard, Chretien deserves a lot of credit after 10 years as PM. The deficit and Quebec separatism were both big issues; now they are not. He made tough and controversial decisions to achieve both of these results. The country is enjoying peace and prosperity (although the foundations of that prosperity may need work). In his last year or so he has at least promised some "left-wing" initiatives, such as one would expect from a Liberal government enjoying surpluses. (Since he did so little to pass his "legacy" legislation, some are saying it was window-dressing). He no doubt enjoys huge support, to say nothing of relief, from Canadians for staying out of Iraq.
His more left-wing side I'm not too crazy about, but does he read the Canadian voter, while giving just a bit of a sense of the future? Absolutely.
On the other hand, he's never had what Bush senior referred to as "the vision thing," and this may prevent him from being remembered as a great PM. Lawrence Martin has written a nice piece comparing Chretien to Harry Truman. Despite the similarities (the plain-spoken man from common roots, who always put them on display), Martin points out a big difference. For Truman, tough means were used with an end in mind; for Chretien, it was often unclear what the end was other than staying in power. See also L. Ian MacDonald here.
For a while the cliche about Chretien was that he was a Quebecker who didn't understand Quebec. He thought the solution to "the Quebec problem" was to continue with Trudeau's policies--bilingualism, multiculturalism, the Charter of Rights, and say "I love Canada," "Canadian first, Quebecker second" with some regularity.
This often did not cut it with the Quebecois--especially intellectuals who subtly distinguish many different kinds of Quebec nationalist: a souverainiste is not necessarily an independantiste. Chretien seemed disastrously out of touch in the 1995 Quebec referendeum campaign on whether to start a new relationship between Quebec and Canada. Chretien largely stayed out of the debate until it was almost too late, and the "No" or "Canada first" side barely squeaked out a victory. For many, this proved that Chretien was better at talking about Quebec to the rest of Canada--even making fun of himself as if supporting stereotypes about Quebeckers--than at talking to Quebeckers themselves.
History may show--although Liberal history books may not admit it--that Chretien's only two "big" ideas as PM were deficit reduction and a new tough line on Quebec separatism; and that he borrowed both from Preston Manning, founder of both the Reform and Alliance party. Better to say: the success of Reform in 1993 was one indication of the public's dissatisfaction with the Mulroney record. Some parts of that record, Chretien didn't touch (especially free trade and the GST). The deficit could be tackled, and it was.
On Quebec: the close result in 1995 seemed to confirm that Manning had been right, and Chretien (along with the Joe Clark Tories) had been wrong: it wasn't enough to keep going through vaguely-worded referenda on whether Quebec would separate. Canada should make its own view clear, and state some consequences of a Yes vote. Behold, the Clarity [updated nov. 16] Bill. Chretien also brought a poli sci professor, Stephane Dion, into his cabinet to help with this issue.
My take is that generally Chretien doesn't like or trust "big idea" people. He has plenty of experience to show that many of them turn out to be Hamlets sooner or later. John Turner may be a spectacular example. He no doubt makes a big exception in his mind for Trudeau--a man who brought impressive ideas into practice. But I suspect he would say Trudeau was unique--and he might say that even Trudeau was too much of the intellecual, too much of the time.
|
