My sense is that, over time, people will realize that Stephane Dion was, in many ways, the perfect leader for the Liberal Party for the brief time he was leader.
His leadership drew a line between the conflicted past and today's unity. His integrity and personal strength were clear to everyone.
Joe Clark, in hindsight, was a far greater leader of the Progressive Conservatives than he once seemed -- history will be kind to Stephane Dion.
Change in reality makes future unclear
The Toronto Star
Friday, May 1, 2009
Page: A06
Section: News
Byline: Chantal Hebert
Source: Toronto Star
As the Liberal party prepares to formally close the sorry chapter of his leadership tonight, it is unclear what, if anything, the political future holds for Stephane Dion.
Since he was cast aside in the heat of last year's parliamentary crisis, Dion has given few public indications of his post-leadership plans and no solid hints that a much-postponed return to academia is now in the cards.
Should he run in the next election and the Liberals win power, he could certainly imitate Joe Clark and Stockwell Day, who both went on to lead productive lives as senior ministers after bruising spells as party leaders.
But if Dion does stay on, it will be because he has become addicted to political life rather than because the original mission that brought him to the federal arena in the wake of the 1995 referendum requires that he remains on the front-line.
Upon his arrival on Parliament Hill, Dion had vouched to change the terms of Canada-Quebec conversation. In his own, hard-to-translate words, he wanted to "change mentalities and then change reality."
Back in early 1996, that sounded like a tall order in either official language but the fact is that there has been a shift in the Quebec optics on sovereignty and federalism.
In the ongoing fixation with the ups and downs of the major federal parties in voting intentions, it is easy to lose sight of the core issue that brought Dion to Parliament Hill more than a decade ago. Back then, sovereignty was the first choice of a majority of francophone Quebecers; now there is mounting evidence that the current quiet spell on the unity front is more than just a ceasefire while sovereigntists regroup for another referendum offensive.
From almost 50 per cent in 1995, support for sovereignty currently hovers at the 40 per cent mark. It has been down to that level since the adoption of the Quebec nation resolution in Parliament in 2006.
That was also the time when Stephen Harper was on an all-out charm offensive in Quebec and Conservatives were in ascent in Quebec.
Since then, Quebecers have soured on the government. These days, it is hard to think of a Conservative policy that has positive traction in Quebec or of a Harper minister who is popular in the province.
Over the past three months, the Conservatives have broken new lows for a sitting federal government in voting intentions in Quebec. At 13 per cent in a just-published CROP poll, they stand to be wiped out of the province in the next election.
And yet, support for sovereignty has remained stagnant. In sharp contrast with the past, deep discontent with the federal government and the reappearance of major irritants between Quebec and Ottawa are not translating into a nationalist surge.
That is not to say that the sovereignty movement is not alive, just that it is not doing as well as the parties that purport to advance its cause.
The support of two out of five Quebecers may be enough to ensure that the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois are forces to contend with in Parliament and the National Assembly but it does not amount to a springboard to another referendum.
Instead, with every passing poll, it is becoming clearer that a significant group of soft nationalists are no longer automatically inclined to use sovereignty as leverage in their collective dealings with Canada. And that, in the awkward words of Dion, is certainly a crucial change in mentalities.
Chantal Hebert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
10 comments:
I hope that the convention participants will join in a sincere and unanimous tribute to Mr. Dion.
This is THE opportunity to properly and heartily say "THANK YOU MR. DION”
O/T but I think I know part of what the NDP attacks will be about. I just saw Joy McPhail on CTV (Dan Matheson) giving her "partisan" view of the Convention. She says it boring beige and that Ignatieff is doing better because corporate Bay St. is behind him - you know, the NDP whining about corporations for their base.
Mr. Dion was a profoundly flawed leader. His best policy, the carbon tax labelled the "Green Shift" was so badly mishandled that Ignatieff treats it as though it was radioactive and dismisses it as dead. In that lies the fundamental failure of both Mr. Dion and his successor.
Dion certainly meant well and his carbon tax was not only essential but courageous but he lacked the political acumen and charisma to sell the idea. Worse yet, he allowed the Harper Conservatives to beat it to death before Dion could even explain it. It arrived, stillborn.
No, Mr. Dion is a skilled and talented and well-meaning man but never much of a leader.
Oh sure. Now she gives Dion a relatively unbiased review.
His leadership was a disaster for the Liberal Party. Thank goodness he was replaced when he was.
Dions "failure" had nothing to do with true "leadership", but instead the public's insistance on politicians who exhibit alpha male characteristics (which Dion did not).
We're a funny species. We bemoan the lack of politicians of principle. Then we get one and reject him because hes nerdy looking and wasnt the best public speaker.
Now we're stuck with not one, but two pandering, wishy washy "politicians" who acted as apologists for the worst excesses of a truly awful American President.
Isn't it time to stop analysing and writing about him - give him a break for now.
Last Anon is probably right -- Stephane is a good guy -- he deserves a proper tribute; enough analysis (and yes, I opened the issue)
Post a Comment