The Fall of Michael Ignatieff: A Teachable Moment

For those of you who do not follow Canadian politics, May 2, 2011 was an exciting day. Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party finally won their majority government. The New Democratic Party became the official opposition winning 102 seats in the new Parliament. The "Bloc Quebecois" Canada's "federal separatist" party (don't even ask what that is all about!) was virtually wiped out, winning only 4 seats and losing their official party status. And the Liberal party, aka "Canada's Natural Governing" party was humiliated, winning only 34 seats and losing their "official opposition" status. Its leader Michael Ignatieff, at one time thought to be a lock for our next Prime Minister (even by yours truly) brought his party to an historic lost, losing his own seat, and resigning the next day. He will be teaching at University of Toronto, presumably on how not to succeed in politics.

This gets me to my "teachable moment". Although there are undoubtedly a bunch of reasons why the election turned out as it did, let us go back to look at how and why Michael Ignatieff became the leader of the Liberal party. His first try was in Dec 2006. He was the favorite to win but lost to Stephane Dion. Two years later in December 2008 the Liberal party, eager to get back into power, even if this meant forming a coalition government with the other two opposition parties, unceremoniously turfed Stephane Dion. Rather than having a proper leadership convention, with debates, and all party members having their say, the Liberal party insiders anointed Michael Ignatieff as their new leader. Less than three years later, Ignatieff takes his party to an historic defeat and loses his own seat. The humiliated Stephane Dion, who unbeknownst to me, has been quietly labouring in the back ground all these years, wins his own seat. Ah, poetic justice.

Perhaps if the Liberal party had not been so eager for power in 2006 and had been patient enough to go through a conventional leadership process, party members would have realized in 2008 why they didn't like Ignatieff in 2006 and chosen someone else as their leader? Observers say that Ignatieff lost in 2011 because he didn't "connect" with the voters. Well, he obviously didn't connect in 2006 either. And maybe he wouldn't have connected in 2008 if put to the test.

So there's a lesson in all of this. Dispense with a democratic and participatory leadership convention at your peril.