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.

Hi, I'm a Liberal - Cross Dressing

Here are the new Young Liberal Ads - check them out at:

http://hi.im.a.liberal.ca/video.aspx?ad=carbonbudget

Harper pushing foward with Elected Senate?!

So Stephen Harper announced today that he will appoint Albertan Bert Brown as the first 'elected' Senator. First off -umm ok talk about contradiction.

First, let me repeat the smart words of Mr. Dion "We know what the Prime Minister wants to do. He wants to have an elected Senate without . . . [clarifying] in the Constitution the role of the two chambers." [Globe and Mail; April 19, 2007]

There will need to be some serious considerations put forward about the role of the 'new' Senate with respect to the House of Commons. What will be the role of the Senate? Which responsbilities will each house take on? Will the Senate have equal power as the House/ more power? Although legislation can normally be introduced in either house, the majority of government bills originate in the House of Commons and rarely do bills passed in the House get rejected by the Senate- would this change with Harper's Elected Senate?

Secondly, an elected Senate? Not only would an elected Senate be a duplicate of the House of Commons, but it would be less effective in pursuing its mandate. Rather than having just one house full of MP's arguing and bickering as they will over issues, over partisanship etc., there will now be two houses bickering over these things. Senate studies as they stand, often have a depth that Parliament rarely achieves. This is a strength of the Senate.

I do not think having an elected Senate will neccessarily give more representation for Canadians the way it is being promoted. I do not think it will achieve much more than an illusion of greater democracy. There is no reason to have two houses that do the same thing; repeatition does not get better results. It is not a bad thing that Senators are not elected. Issues are often shifted aside with MP's who have to spent a significant amount of time on elections; somethig that is not at stake in the Senate. Because their time is not spent on getting ready for elections, they have more time to deal with Issues. And this differentiates them from the duties of an MP.

It says on the Prime Minister's website, "Canada needs an upper house with democratic legitimacy.And I hope we can work together to move towards that enhanced democratic legitimacy." This talk of 'enhanced democracy' is little more than talk though. I believe this is more a photo opt for Harper to once again make the claim that he is following through with election promises.

If there is to be Senate reform, it should be in a positive way. I do not think an Elected Senate would be a positive step though. Its just unneccessary in terms of becoming more efficient and more representative.

But, What do you think the Senate should be like? Should it be elected like Harper is pursuing? Should it remain in tact the way it is?

Canadian Leadership /Leadership canadien

The Liberal Party has just released a great, positive TV ad (a welcomed change from the conservatives' sneaky attack ads). It shows what real leadership is about.

Have a look!

Penny Collenette takes Ottawa-Centre

NEW FEDERAL LIBERAL CANDIDATE IN OTTAWA-CENTRE:

Congratulations to Penny Collenette who has just won the Federal Liberal nomination in Ottawa-Centre! Thank you to everyone who worked so hard on her campaign and thanks to everyone who came out to vote today. I was happy to see Penny, who gave an excellent speech just before the voting started, win the nomination. She is a wonderful woman who will do a great job representing the Liberals in the riding of Ottawa-Centre during the next election.

A big thanks goes out to Scott Bradley who was also a great candidate during this nomination process.

And for now I continue on with the provincial nomination deciding who will replace Richard Patton as MPP in Ottawa-Centre* .

* Delayed Update: Yasir Naqvi was nominated on June 4, 2007 to become the Provincial Liberal Candidate in Ottawa-Centre. He did a great job during the nomination and continues to work hard in the coming days to Ontario's election. Congrats to Yasir! Time to get him to Queen's park now.