Its good to finally see a more reasoned analysis. Danielle Smith’s recent floor-crossing along with eight of her Alberta Wildrose caucus colleagues was certainly remarkable. Just as striking, however, has been the overwhelming criticism that ensued. Normally levelheaded pundits were very quickly tripping over each other in their rush to condemn the departed. If this were a football game, there would have been a penalty for piling on. I fear some critical perspective has been lost. Political parties are formed to market ideas and approaches to dealing with social, economic, environmental and other complex issues. Politics, being essentially a race for votes, is a competitive process. At various times, some parties generate better ideas, others offer up superior marketers. It is a rare and special moment in politics when an inspiring communicator is also in possession of a well-considered and appealing policy platform. However, even that enviable combination brings no guarantee of success once in government. Competence, including the ability to manage, to prioritize and to compromise when necessary, are other key pieces of that puzzle. In the US, though presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were all great communicators, they were not all equally successful at running a government and/or achieving their political objectives. The point is, leadership matters. Former premiers Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford each rose through the ranks to lead Alberta’s own Natural Governing Party. By all accounts, Wildrose leader Danielle Smith did a commendable job at holding premiers Stelmach and Redford to account, arguably contributing greatly to the demise of each. Smith and her Wildrose party effectively highlighted poor financial management, ethical transgressions and the straying from conservative principles. This past September, when Jim Prentice was selected as the new PC leader and thereby became Alberta premier, Danielle Smith continued to question and challenge the Conservative government. She predicted, in fact, that there would be more of the same transgressions under Prentice as had been seen under premiers Stelmach and Redford. But then, it seems, the Wildrose leader set out to assess for herself -- privately and with a rare and commendable objectivity -- whether her own dire predictions about Prentice were warranted. Smith met the enemy, spent some time with him and decided that there was little room between what Wildrose stood for and what Prentice aspired to. More importantly, since leadership matters, she assessed Prentice to be competent, sincere and as committed to ending the spending transgressions and ethical lapses as was Smith’s Wildrose party. What’s an opposition politician to do in such a circumstance? Danielle Smith decided that, on balance, with Jim Prentice leading the Conservatives, there was more to support than oppose. I daresay she believes – and based on her political track record, such confidence appears merited – that she can better shape policy and ensure competent administration from within a Prentice-led government than from across the aisle, in opposition. A political activist may be motivated to challenge an incumbent government perceived as failing in its duty or neglecting its principles – the Wildrose party was born of this, as was Reform and other parties before it -- but, really, very few politicians aspire to be in opposition. Indeed, it should come as no surprise that any politician wouldnt want to remain in opposition for their entire political career. It has been over 40 years since the electorate in Alberta decided to cast out an incumbent government, replacing it with an opposition party. The Progressive Conservative party has been in power since 1971, winning 12 straight majorities along the way. With generations of Albertans having elected successive majority Conservative governments, the hue and cry about Smith being guilty of abandoning her supposed obligation to provide an effective opposition seems not just misplaced but also downright puzzling. Having achieved many of her party’s objectives and having seen someone she deemed competent and well-intentioned take the reins of government, is it really fair to demand that Danielle Smith continue to oppose and criticize? If, by her own judgment, she can have a greater impact working from within a government whose leadership and direction she now asserts to be comfortable with, is it fair to criticize her for wanting to serve as part of that government? Since Smiths audacious move, it has been alleged that she has abandoned her principles. I see no such political crime here. Indeed, one could argue that it would have been unprincipled for Smith to have continued to oppose, for the sake of opposing, once she had come to the conclusions she had. As for any offense to the electorate who voted her in, just as they would have been able to do if she had remained Wildrose leader yet regularly supported Conservative measures in the legislature, they will have their chance -- at the next election -- to pass judgment on the floor-crossing. Unless Smith’s considered assessment of Premier Prentice proves incorrect, I suspect her constituents will come to understand why she moved and will continue to value her service. Wildrose party members may yet come to the same conclusion themselves.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:40:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015