By Lloyd Mackey

A FEW weeks ago, a Christian friend whose counsel I value had a few thoughts for me about some upcoming personal decisions.

He summarized those thoughts by suggesting: "I am not saying this is 'thus saith the Lord.' I'm just suggesting that you try a different way of thinking."

What follows, today, should not be considered to be from the Lord, the governor-general or even some wise political pundits. It is simply what emerged in this writer's mind as a "different way of thinking" for the various players on the political turf in Ottawa.

* * *

Power-sharing if necessary, but not necessarily power-sharing.

That phrase seems to come to my mind increasingly. It is triggered by thoughts of the now-dead idea of a de facto NDP/Liberal/Bloc coalition, President Obama's reference to putting away childish things and the death, this week, of a true servant leader, Stan Hagen.

What we have, now, rather, is a Liberal opposition leader who will approve the federal Conservative budget, while, all the while, watching his prime ministerial opposite "like a hawk."

NDP leader Jack Layton disappointedly told the television cameras that we how have a "coalition between Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper."

In the interest of "trying a different way of thinking," I would like to cautiously suggest that power-sharing -- either implicit or explicit -- be considered as a viable option, extending well into the future.

Power-sharing between the political right and centre is gradually becoming the way to do things in such far-scattered jurisdictions as Germany, Kenya, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. As well, it worked well in Australia for many years, and probably will again, in due course.

In making the power-sharing argument, I will readily admit to applying group behavioural concepts, rather than political science, to the issues surrounding the question.

It seems to be a no-brainer that power-sharing should include the party that presently holds the power. The fact that none of the signatories to the NDP/Liberal/Bloc proposal presently holds power suggests that there has been a great leap of illogic created in bringing it to the table.

The strongest argument for its illicit nature was that it became evident that, apparently led by the NDP, the plan was being hatched from before voting day on September 14. All during that time, the prime minister was talking about reaching out and collaborating. More to the point, all opposition party leaders were at least offering the pretence of taking the hand that was being extended to them.

What the prime minister might have suspected, but could not know for sure without getting into Jack Layton's brain, was that the hands reaching out to his were really the mouths of barracudas.

Of course, Layton may well have overplayed his hand/mouth. In appealing to Stephane Dion's desire not to be only the second Liberal leader never to become prime minister, he virtually destroyed the man politically. And he paved the way for Dion to be quickly replaced by a more conservative, erudite and self-assured Liberal leader -- and one who was much less inclined to depend on the coalition to shoehorn him into 24 Sussex Drive.

That, then, is the basis on which I would like to modestly propose a power-sharing arrangement, in due course, between the Conservatives, who have the most seats in the House of Commons, and any or all of the followers of Michael Ignatieff.

Not that power-sharing is absolutely vital to the work of the present minority parliament. But, if Ignatieff and the Liberals want to constructively regain some of the levers to power in the near future, they might best do so by sharing them with the Harper Conservatives.

If, that is, the Conservatives are prepared to share.

That is why it is time to remember that remarkable feat which united federal conservatism almost half a decade ago. Harper -- ruthlessly, some said -- pursued the unity goal, after cautiously declining to embrace it in his run for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance.

There was more than ruthlessness, however. Harper and Peter MacKay, then leader of the Progressive Conservatives, pulled together a group of "elders" (they called them emissaries). They drew the group from the senior ranks of every stripe of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative rainbow -- with some blue liberal thinking stirred, almost anonymously, into the mix as well. And they depended on the common -- yet necessarily separate -- co-operation of such as Preston Manning, Brian Mulroney, Stockwell Day, Bob Runciman and Diane Ablonczy, among others.

* * *

On his inauguration day, President Obama declared that it was time for Americans to put away "childish things" (a quote from 1 Corinthians 13, the great biblical love chapter). Years before, the Canadian conservative movement had presaged Obama, when it reversed its previous, and perhaps temporarily necessary, divisiveness.

The movement's party has grown steadily, if not always spectacularly, in inverse proportion to the Liberals' decline.

The new challenge, whose timeliness is honed by the need to fight a war on economic ruin, is the sharing of power with the Ignatieff Liberals -- if they, too, are interested in putting away childish things.

* * *

Continue article >>

All this brings me to "ruthless as rattlesnakes" -- the phrase coined by John Ivison in the National Post, on January 20, when he was recounting the commonalities of Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

The application of the power-sharing thesis is based on the idea that the alleged ruthlessness of the two men can be played out to the benefit of both themselves and their respective parties. The idea has win-win-win-win potential -- even ultimately for Canada's left-leaners and the Bloc, as we will see in a moment.

If, for 18 months, for example, the Conservatives and Liberals can ruthlessly work out a power-sharing arrangement, the Canadian economy and all things related could take a turn for the better. (I use the 18-month reference, because that is what the triumvirate coalition was proposing, for the Bloc to prop them up.)

I would gently suggest that several things might, successively, happen, were a right-centre power-sharing arrangement to take place.

1. Harper and Ignatieff may get along very well and take full advantage of conjointly building a strong governance structure.
2. The arrangement might work so well that the blue Liberals would think to embrace it permanently.
3. The one-third of the Liberal party that leans left might decide to link up with the NDP, with co-leaders Jack Layton and Bob Rae. One of those two men could emerge as the leader of the NDP/Pink Liberals coalition.
4. The Bloc would not form the official opposition because the N/PLs would have more seats combined. That would leave the BQ to concentrate on their raison d'etre, which is Quebec-centred.
5. Stephen Harper would be able to complete what he set out to do, when he aspired to prepare his party for long term governance -- the effects of which he hopes will continue well beyond his prime ministerial tenure. (Paul Wells of Maclean's drew Harper out on this question in an excellent September 17, 2008 interview, entitled 'Harper's Canadian Revolution.')
6. Michael Ignatieff would get full credit for being a good servant leader who was willing to help the younger Stephen Harper build a stronger Canada. It could be a fulfilling mentoring relationship for a distinguished Harvard professor presently approaching his retirement years!

The answer to both questions is to encourage the Liberal leader to do a new and different form of deep thinking. Don't think "political breakup", rather, "political realignment". Loyalty to a structure can give way to working toward a new and different structure, a broadening of vision, a bringing of strength of one great tradition to the task of another great and equally valid institution.

* * *

Not many people outside British Columbia will know the name of Stan Hagen, the BC Liberal provincial cabinet minister who died January 20. (So many significant things happened that day!)

Hagen was a genuine servant. And, as it happens, his faith (in this case, Christian) taught him that a leader achieves his or her best by being a good servant. His life and witness to that servanthood gave him a significant role to play in the building of a successful centre-right power-sharing arrangement in British Columbia.

If Harper and Ignatieff can master servant leadership, and share it with those who have made them leaders, they will have caused Canadian governance to shake and shift in a new and creative way. They will help to meld the best traditions of freedom, democracy and a civil society.

Now that, I suppose, is a different way of thinking.

* * *

Before wrapping this rather long piece, I would like to semi-shift the subject.

Last week, I provided some analysis of the "religious" stuff surrounding the inauguration of American President Barack Obama, but gave rather short shrift to the gala balls and other cultural events.

Rick Anderson, long-time valued advisor to Preston Manning and periodic commentator on Don Newman's CBC show called Politics, responded with a few thoughts on those things on which I had little comment.

Here are Anderson's thoughts:

Lloyd:

Firstly, your diversity comment applies as much to the music/entertainment side of the day. You had boatloads of young people at the inaugural and at the balls (some of which were not the usual elite type events). And you had black entertainers in droves becoming more genuinely part of and connected to the exercise, as opposed to being invited into a foreign world. It was pretty different, watching rappers who have no sense of relationship to the wider community suddenly taking and discussing an interest in the presidency and in government. And coupled with that was Barack's "service" theme.

Secondly, a lot of the music also had spiritual quality.

All in all, a grand day. He'll never live up to the monstrous expectations; that'll be a problem. But it is nice to see genuine hope and faith in politics -- particularly among the hitherto disengaged.

Lloyd Mackey is a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa and author of Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006), More Faithful Than We Think: Stories and Insights on Canadian Leaders Doing Politics Christianly (BayRidge Books, 2005) and Like Father, Like Son: Ernest Manning and Preston Manning (ECW Press, 1997). Lloyd can be reached at lmackey@canadianchristianity.com.

January 29/2009