Sure, half the media around Parliament Hill — and all of the hangers-on — will insist with breathless intensity about the need to turn the page on Mike Duffy. Rumours abound of who’s in or out, up or down. And Sparks Street is buzzing like a hornet about the impact on vital agenda items such as free trade with Europe, pipelines to America and Tony Clement on Twitter.
Above all, political types whisper with urgent surety that this is it: The Big Move, the remedy to the lickspittle-Senate-expenses-taxpayer-debacle, the long expected shakeup designed to re-energize a government that suddenly appears visibly gassed — its mouth hanging open, gulping for the oxygen of political renewal.
The chitterati repeats all this without ever bothering to ask: Has it even once succeeded? Has a cabinet shuffle ever taken a federal government off the mat, set it back on the balls of its feet and shoved it forward onto victory?
The answer is no, not really. Despite how badly we want to believe otherwise, that’s not what cabinet shuffles do. And that’s not what this cabinet shuffle, whenever it occurs, will do, either.
Does anyone actually think that Gail Shea’s departure would materially affect Harper’s bid for a second straight majority? Awaking one day to learn there is a new Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification will blunt Justin Trudeau’s appeal exactly how?
One of Harper’s great strengths is his ability to resist distraction from such inside-the-bubble exuberances. To a fault, he is mercenarily attuned to what does and doesn’t matter when it comes to harvesting votes. If there’s anyone in Ottawa unconfused about the magic healing properties of a cabinet shuffle, it’s a good bet he lives at 24 Sussex Drive.
That doesn’t mean some alterations aren’t a good thing.
A well-orchestrated cabinet shuffle can clear away some deadwood and boost a few up-and-comers. It can certainly improve the internal operations and decision-making process of government. Sometimes a prime minister will even use a shuffle to delegate some of the job’s tedium by appointing a trusted lieutenant to serve as a de facto chief operating officer — think of Maz for Mulroney or Manley for Chretien.
These are important developments. But they’re not the stuff of election wins and loss. Over the past 30 years, only two shuffles stand out as particularly consequential — and even they fail to live up to the expectations being currently cultivated.
In 1986, fresh off a stream of scandals, resignations and general chaos, Brian Mulroney engineered a sweeping reboot of his government. In that case he not only remade his cabinet but also his own office. It helped him to hit his stride as leader of the government but it would be hindsight to suggest that it automatically revitalized his political prospects. Re-election two years later hinged less on the shuffle than his gutsy decision to transform the campaign into a referendum on free trade with the U.S.
A full decade later, Jean Chrétien showed an even greater flair for the dramatic by swearing in two new ministers before they had even been elected to Parliament. The recruitment of Stéphane Dion and Pierre Pettigrew triggered a massive shuffle that helped Chretien regain his footing after a devastating near-death experience with Quebec separatists.
Unquestionably, this second cabinet was a far stronger group than his inaugural effort. But, again, it’s difficult to directly trace the Liberals’ re-election in 1997 to the shakeup that occurred nearly two years prior.
The lesson of history therefore is that shuffles matter in Ottawa. And there alone. They are vital to the functioning and administration of government. To the snakes and ladders games of political ambition.
But they cannot be asked to rejuvenate a government in the eyes of voters. And they will not handily erase public disdain for a greedy Senator who struggles to remember his own address when there’s a buck to be made.
In fact, the tightly controlled and media-allergic style of the Harper government arguably makes a shuffle even less noteworthy. Truthfully, voters only know Harper. So what advantage could be wrought from changing the players in an anonymous cast?
The real challenge, of course, is to define the terms of engagement for the next election. This is an area where Harper is very skilled. How to avoid the classic “time for a change” ballot question? Can he work through this current crisis centred in his own PMO and Senate caucus? Will he maintain his claim to the most able economic manager among the major leaders?
Or — more spectacularly — will he opt to retire and create the conditions for genuine renewal?
These are the truly big decisions for 2015 — not who will be named the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Watch the shuffle come and go. Savour it for the important event it is.
But reserve your real enthusiasm for the actions that Harper takes afterward. Those are the decisions that will count at the ballot box.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com
Author: Scott Reid
No comments:
Post a Comment