Jack be Nimble; Mr. Layton be Quick, Mr. Jack Layton be Classic!

Jack be Nimble; Mr. Layton be Quick.

Every child mimes a rhyme and every child’s rhyme has a moral dimension. The same with Jack and the candlestick. Although most parents would probably prefer a clever and timely child, as long as he's not a little rascal, every parent knows that a clever child is not necessarily timely; and punctual kids are not necessarily clever. In politics unfortunately, when you're not nimble and not quick, you're out of luck. And Jack can't afford snuffing out the candlestick before the term ends.   That’s why Homer’s Ulysses is such a remarkable character: he plans his interventions well and leads his trained crew well.  That’s why Homer is such a classic- whatever may be troubling or overwhelming about the political arena of gods and men, destinies are never unresolved. Classic figures, with a little help from divine friends,  always find the inner strength to either succeed or transcend their failure.  In the case of Ulysses, the underlying narrative is home and family, the values honor and love.

So, Mr. Layton, if a classic rhyme can trigger an imperative and an initiative, 'be nimble and be quick', lest fortune snuff out the candlestick! Then it's worth the following recall.

Our May 2, 2011 posting had predicted a majority Progressive Conservative Government; a Liberal oust and a Bloc rout, and recognized the NDP as Parliament’s new opposition.  By doing so, the Mr. Layton and the NDP changed Canadian Parliamentary history: it was the first time since Confederation that the NDP had assumed the role as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  To say the least, the May 2, 2011 election result blindsided the leadership of the NDP party, regardless of what they contend. Had the virtue of Messrs Layton and Mulcair been premonitory, professing virtue (virtu) in the most endearing of machiavellian senses,  the selection and availability of candidates would have been more vigilantly curated. On the other hand, thank heaven that the new NDP candidates are enthusiastic and unmarred by political whines. The rejuvenation and earnestness of a young whingeless opposition may indeed mark the beginning of an unorthodox parliamentary session and help counter their leadership's caution. Yet, at some point, euphoria, wishful thinking and rationalization will dissipate, and the people and more particularly the media, will lend a serious ear to the realpolitik being deliberated on Parliament Hill.

The same May 2 posting reminded Mr. Layton of his obligations towards Canadians, and Central Canada in particular, that had opted for change, and had chosen to resend some weather-worn elected officials and a group of novice enthusiasts to represent the interests and aspirations of an opposing electorate, to check the government, and mostly act as an alternative government in waiting. I owe the latter notion to a former Conservative Rt Hon John George Diefenbaker from a speech delivered in 1949 to the Empire Club in Toronto.In view of this serious responsibility and ultimate end, the NDP must be pragmatic, and demonstrate courage and wisdom.  

More than two thousand years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle judged that of all governments, Democracy was the most desirable, although he also considered it as the most fragile of all the forms, as did Churchill  more than two millenia later when the latter proposed the epitaph "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world… No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." As a result of this intrinsic frailty, it is the duty of party leaders to ensure that their respective legislators are best equipped with resources and adequately trained to exercise their rhetoric in the House of Commons and in the Committees. After all, politics in a Parliamentary Democracy takes a highly Rhetorical form, and the best at eloquence and substance ultimately win the day. It is then natural and wise to seek out the best orations by opponents to the government in Parliamentary history as a springboard for one's own preparation.  Suffice to browse, for those with some time to spare, the interventions of Messrs Pitt the elder, Pitt the younger, Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone, David Lloyd George and Churchill in the UK, Messrs Tommy Douglas, Diefenbaker, Stanfield and Broadbent in Canada, in order to evoke the voice and temperament of fearless and ferocious opposition. If one may humbly suggest, although the latter all warrant lecture, among these, there is probably no better prescription of the role of the opposition than a speech delivered by the Hon. John Diefenbaker in 1949 to the Empire Club in Toronto. It is an elegantly structured, marvellously argued and a profound historical rendition of the nature and role of Canada's Loyal Opposition. It should be a staple on the Opposition bench and visible to the Conservatives and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, although we surmise that The Prime Minister and the better of his bench have gem in memory.

If cautions can be suggested, avoid the simplistic resonance attributed to George Tierney 'oppose everything and propose nothing' or the monologous, para-filibuster undertaking of the 1993 Bouchard Official Opposition centered largely on Quebec which undermined the  ‘loyalty’ of the opposition regardless of its officialism. Notwithstanding all the effort and good faith Mr. Bouchard demonstrated, it is difficult to represent 'loyalty' when the principles dictating the postures of the Government and the Opposition are fundamentally different and diametrically opposed.  This was best articulated by Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural speech wherein he affirmed that belief in the same principles permits differences in opinion and policy, arguing that it reflects and is the foundation of the party system, and underlines the dynamic of a healthy political opposition.

Within the difficult context of a Majority Government and an emergent inexperienced Loyal Opposition, the challenge for Mr. Layton is to ensure the soundness of his platform and credibility of his legislators. Both Mr. Layton and his executive are accountable to the Canadian people for the quality and quantity of work that the Opposition must perform. Failure on either count may entail the unravelling of the party and the demise of Layton/Mulcair as serious political figures.

Greek political thought had given enormous significance to the quality of legislative efforts and polities. Aristotle (Ethics Bk X: 1180b28ff), in particular, demanded that legislators be properly and practically trained and educated by experienced politicians before entering the political arena. This advice on the importance of a legislator's education is confirmed by figures no less outstanding than Thomas Hobbes  and Voltaire, and success in the matter entails, according to Aristotle 'no better legacy...to their state, and no greater distinction ...for themselves...' (Ethics Bk X:1181aff).

Paraphrasing Machiavelli: it’s not the titles that ennobles the person; it is the actions of a person that give value to the title. So too, it is the duty of  leadership to equip and motivate its legislators. So let the media put aside its speculations and ramblings on the causes for success or failure of this Opposition until later in the term. Only at that moment can both Media and History evaluate Messrs Layton and Mulcair on their ability and resolve to have assumed responsibility and organized a serious and respectful Loyal Opposition.

This post contends that Messrs Layton and Mulcair will succeed. This post hopes that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition of the 41st Parliament will become one of the most inspiring displays of serious and responsible deliberation in Parliamentary History.

Jack is nimble and Mr. Layton is quick, and Mr. Jack Layton shall clear the candlestick!