There are a couple of things that have popped up in Canadian politics recently that probably require some comment. Maybe not require, but since I use this to vent, that’s what is going to happen regardless.
First and far lower profile is the minor flap over the “no-good bastards” remark made by Conservative MP Gerald Keddy recently. He was saying what a lot of people think about the chronically unemployed in the context of migrant labour, in other words it was a defensible opinion, albeit rather crudely presented.
He should certainly not have said exactly that in a public forum, but what’s done is done. What bothers me, and lowers his credibility with people who otherwise agree with him, is the cringing end to his apology in the House of Commons the other day:
Later Tuesday, Keddy stood in the House of Commons and once again expressed his regret. "I apologize to anyone who was offended by my remarks," he said.
Keddy said what he was thinking, and although it badly needed to be qualified somewhat, some people NEED to be offended sometimes. A blanket apology (to me) shows a lack of backbone unless it is used for something you said impulsively but don’t actually mean. We all do that, and there is no value in backing up random stupidity that pops out of your head. Admit it was stupid and move on, but do it with some class.
You’ll piss certain people off no matter what you say if you’re saying anything of substance; that’s the price of doing business. If you flip-flop and react to that by apologizing all the time you’ll lose the respect (and support) of the people who DID agree with you.
Next, the main event in the Commons right now: the prisoner hand-off/torture fiasco.
The government has done a terrible job with this, full-stop. Today’s headlines include a poll done that shows that more people believe Diplomat Richard Colvin’s assertions that he warned the government about the fact that prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities by our troops were routinely abused by those authorities.
We have been hearing these allegations in the news for several years now, and I’m quite certain that this is the case. The Defence Minister’s attempts to discredit Colvin have backfired badly, as they should have, because they were dishonest smear tactics. Transfers have been put on hold several times in-theatre because the Afghans were abusing prisoners a bit too obviously.
This is a dirty war in a crappy but deadly serious part of the world. Ask the Russians; if you were captured, you were lucky if they only ass-raped you within an inch of your life. Hell, go even farther back if need be:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
I read something yesterday about someone interviewing a “former” Taliban Imam in Kabul about these torture claims being propaganda. His response was apparently a shrug followed by “We would do the same to them”.
Where does this connect to the Leadership theme I claimed in the title? The first of the Canadian Forces Principles of Leadership is: “Achieve professional competence.” Do your homework so that you come out of the gate with the right information. This of course may have been the case; Mr MacKay likely knew a great deal about what goes on over there. In that case this has just been poorly handled.
Credibility was the basis of the government’s attack on Colvin, and it was a poor choice. The way to handle this was to say “Yes, we have heard about this. At any time when we had grounds for concern about the treatment of prisoners we handed over to the Afghans, we suspended transfers until they straightened out again.”
Give the opposition no traction, but DO IT WITH THE TRUTH. This reinforces your credibility, and from there you can brush off the gnat-like buzzing of disgruntled diplomats and take the wind out of the sails of your political opponents. I notice that the government is starting to move in this direction now, but the damage has been done.
Calling politicians “leaders” is a stretch the vast majority of the time. The strength of personality required to stand by your principles (heck, to have some principles as a politician in the first place) is rare, and even more rare is that coupled with enough charisma to pull it off. Preston Manning, for example is very principled, but lacked the charisma to break out into the mainstream. His opposite is sitting in the White House right now; all charisma, no leadership or firm principles, and people are starting to notice.
That I suppose is the point of diminishing returns that you hit if you have firm opinions on things. Far more damaging than merely disagreeing with someone is having no respect for them, and trade-offs must be carefully calculated if you’re to have a successful run as a politician that people feel that they can trust. A rare breed, but the only true Leaders in politics, or anywhere else for that matter.
“You can’t handle the truth!” is a famous admonition (albeit from a work of fiction) about what the public can digest. The public will understand what needs to be done as long as you explain it succinctly and consistently. It works with kids, and we all were kids once so it still works. Note that “succinctly” doesn’t mean “dumb it down”; many people are simple, but the majority of them are not actually stupid and that is an important distinction. And yes, I know I’m repeating myself on this topic, but hey, I’m fairly consistent!
No comments:
Post a Comment