Michael Ignatieff on Political Judgement

Michael Ignatieff decided that it was best for him to come out a write a piece admitting his error in judgement over the Iraq war. As most know, many people have criticized his past judgement on the issue and he has usually defended his position strongly against such criticism. But today if you had a chance to read his article in the New York Times, you would see that there was no such defence this time.

At first I was a little reluctant to hear that he was writing such a piece in the first place. And not because I feel that he hasn't perhaps altered his views over the situation in Iraq (for he has) or because I feel that it is not positive for somone to be able to admit when they are wrong (for it is good to do so), but because I thought it would do little for him and thus would be nothing more than words of regret. However, after reading the article, I have come to judge it and his purpose for writing it quite differently.

The article was far more than just an admitting of error, it was an eye opener into the reality of being human and being a politican at the same time. He talked about the his personal passions over the Iraq situation getting the better of him -"My convictions had all the authority of personal experience, but for that very reason, I let emotion carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror?"- but he goes so much further in discussing how this passion is something difficult to deal with as an individual and furthemore as a politician. This is something that nonetheless must be overcome when holding office; you become a person responsible to be the leader people want and need you to be.

He is able to show the reality of political life in a manner so simple that you would think it's common knowledge, but then you realize the reality of political life (that is the pragmatism involved; the lack of intellectual contemplation allowed due to the reality of life's unpredictability etc.) is rarely discussed in a manner that actually comes close to what is true.

Overall Ignatieff's article is a must read for anyone who wants to understand a little more about the reality of making decisions and then being able to hold youself accountable for that decision in a meaningful way. He shows leadership for all of us in being able to say he was wrong and then understand why he was wrong. To understand one's error is the most important element in ensuring better judgement in the future - learning never really ends and thats a point I think he makes quite clear.

And yet even so, the judgement he made back in 2001 and the one that he continued to hold until recentrly, was no doubt premised on the right reasons. He felt strongly about preventing further terror in the country he witnessed so much terror in already, but as he says about prudent leaders, "They do not suppose that their own good intentions will guarantee good results. They do not suppose they know all they need to know". He acknowleges the necessary steps to ensure you are balanced when you make a decision with such grave consequences; something he overlooked but in the most human way after wanting so much better for people who had suffered so much under Saddam and his regime.

And for this I find his words in the New York Times impressive and something I think people can learn from.