Once you take control of a political party, you have to have an appearance of being in control. Jean Chretien, for example, had a huge amount of control over his party and was a devious politician - that's why he held a majority government for 13 years, until things finally slipped out of his control (too greedy). No one would accuse Chretien of being a weak leader, because he was a vicious politician and everyone knew it.
In this case, Dion was handed the leadership because he was the lesser of two evils for both sides, and his inability to project control over his party was, yes, influenced by the two frontrunners not really wanting to be subordinate. Harper seized control of the Conservative party when they merged, and kept it - probably because he is as ruthless as Chretien was back in his heyday. I haven't seen him show any limits when dealing with the public or taking whatever stance absolved his party of responsiblity.
Harper would look like a real leader if he got a majority government willing to stand behind him. The problem with his heavy-handed manner is that, as a minority government, he requires the help of the other parties to pass any laws. Instead of trying to work with the other parties, and dealing with them diplomatically, he continually alienates himself and his party by forcing motions down all their throats that will cause them harm, backing it up by saying 'If you don't like it, we'll have another election.' He doesn't have the confidence of the House, or of the Canadian people - that doesn't look like a leader to me.






Reply With Quote

Bookmarks