It is a condition of our freedom that we cannot compel anyone to believe in the premise of a liberal democracy. Either these premises freely convince others or they are useless.
Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil (2004)
There’s an increasing likelihood that Michael Ignatieff will be the new Liberal party leader by the end of this year. This means, among other things, that he also has a good chance of becoming Canada’s next prime minister. Many Liberals are delighted by this prospect, seeing Ignatieff as a sort of 21st century Pierre Trudeau, a philosopher king who can deliver the party from the scandals, cronyism and dearth of new ideas that soured the reigns of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Others are less enthusiastic, dismissing the former Harvard scholar as an Americanized Bush apologist.
They might both be right.
At first glance, it’s easy to see why Ignatieff has emerged as the front-runner among the 11 leadership candidates. He has the best financed and organized campaign, with powerful support coming from the likes of Senator David Smith, former Ontario premier David Peterson, and Ian Davey, son of party "rainmaker" Keith Davey. He’s fluent in both official languages – unlike most of his rivals – and is an articulate and sometimes compelling public speaker. Finally, he’s carved out a clear position on some key issues, notably in his support for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan (Scott Brison is the only other contender who shares this enthusiasm) and his proposal for a new carbon tax.
No wonder, then, that Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson recently declared that "Stopping Iggy will not be an easy task." This seems to be the growing consensus after the two leadership forums in Winnipeg and Moncton, for while Ignatieff’s hawkish stand on Afghanistan – "We should stay there until we get the job done and return with honour" – may not be shared by a majority of party members, it’s been a long time since foreign policy determined any leadership race in Canada. At the moment, at least, it looks like this is Ignatieff’s race to lose.
Certainly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper – an astute political strategist, whatever else he might be – appears to regard Ignatieff as a force to be reckoned with. Last month, it was Ignatieff who led a group of 24 dissenting Liberals to support the government’s motion to extend Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan, and after the narrow four-vote victory Harper made the point of crossing the floor to shake Ignatieff’s hand in gratitude.
Harper has also paid Ignatieff the backhanded compliment of singling him out for attack, notably last week when he likened Ignatieff’s proposed carbon tax to Trudeau’s much maligned (and in Alberta, much hated) National Energy Program. That the prime minister even responded to an idea that at the moment is little more than a vague suggestion underlines the seriousness with which he views Ignatieff as a potential opponent in the next election.
And then there’s the "Stop Iggy" movement. Alone among the 11 candidates, Ignatieff enjoys the dubious distinction of having inspired a web-based campaign to scupper his leadership bid (see www.stopiggy.com). It’s not clear just who’s behind this plot – "Liberals who are deeply concerned by Michael Ignatieff’s candidacy" is the only self-identification – but the litany of accusations is fairly familiar. In turn, the site denounces Ignatieff’s "right-wing views regarding torture, the war in Iraq and the weaponization of space," as well as his more general support for and identification with Bush’s America and his own disregard for the democratic process.
As with all good smear campaigns, there’s an element of truth to these claims. Ignatieff has constructed an intellectual justification for the limited use of torture; he was (and still is) a supporter of the mission to depose Saddam Hussein and the subsequent attempt to rebuild Iraq; he did, while at Harvard, frequently identify himself as an American ("Being an American is not easy," he once said. "We are judged by a high standard, one we crafted for ourselves in the founding documents of the republic"); and the manner in which he was "parachuted" into the safe seat of Etobicoke-Lakeshore clearly violated the spirit of Martin’s pledge to respect local ridings in selecting their own candidates.
And yet… there’s something about this site – the way it quotes Ignatieff’s often complex arguments in sound-bite chunks, hides behind the coward’s cloak of anonymity, and even misspells the party’s first great leader’s name as "Wilfred" (not "Wilfrid") Laurier – that suggests Ignatieff should have little to fear from its effect. After all, Canadians generally prefer the satirical mocking of Rick Mercer to the outright character assassination favoured by the likes of Bill O’Reilly. If anything, the "Stop Iggy" campaign may even garner the man some sympathy support.
All the same, there are charges to be answered. Ignatieff and his supporters often claim that his detractors quote him out of context, and thus miss the nuance of his arguments. Maybe, but Ignatieff must surely know that there’s no room for nuance in the battlefield of Canadian politics. So when he says, for instance, that "Ukrainian independence conjures up images of embroidered peasant shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony Cossacks in cloaks and boots, [and] nasty anti-Semites," as he does in Blood and Belonging, he can hardly be surprised to find this characterization thrown back at him by his opponents, regardless of context or nuance.
This is especially true of Ignatieff’s most recent and most controversial book, The Lesser Evil, in which he discusses the challenges facing liberal democracies in the post-9/11 world. "When democracies fight terrorism," he writes, "they are defending the proposition that their political life should be free of violence. But defeating terror requires violence." And it may also, Ignatieff concedes, require the torture of suspects to obtain information. He does not go so far as to condone this prospect – instead, he hides behind the fine distinction between "permissible duress" (e.g. sleep deprivation) and "impermissible duress" (e.g. physical abuse) – but still he concedes that in "the age of terrorism" even basic human rights may not be guaranteed for all.
This sort of talk is new ground for the Liberals, and it may or may not play into the outcome of the leadership race. But should Ignatieff emerge victorious in December, it’s likely that the party will never be quite the same again. "I don’t take lessons from anybody about being a good Liberal," he replied to an attack from rival Joe Volpe last weekend. Just what, in Ignatieff’s world, a "good Liberal" is remains to be seen.
Ignatieff essentials
Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (1993)
Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond (2000)
The Rights Revolution (2000)
Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry (2001)
Empire Lite: Nation-Building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan (2003)
The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (2004) |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.