IT IS A safe bet that prime minister Stephen Harper never expected, and certainly did not want, to be in the position he is in this week: forced to shuffle his cabinet in an attempt to get his minority government out of the political doldrums.
He undoubtedly imagined John Diefenbaker’s 1957 minority government as the template for his own future when he took office in February 2006 – launch an aggressive, activist government agenda, contrast the energetic new government with the tired old recently ousted Liberals and sweep to victory within months.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Instead, it is looking more like Joe Clark’s minority is the template, albeit Harper’s tenure has been longer, more decisive and more divisive.
Much of the early Conservative arsenal of ideas and energy has been used and yet voters remain underwhelmed, leaving the Conservatives stuck in minority country.
A planned spring election had to be postponed. Only the failure of new Liberal leader Stéphane Dion to catch on with the public has prevented Harper from slipping to second place.
So the impatient prime minister is stuck with many more months of governing from a weak position, facing an aggressive opposition that thwarts him in Parliament and a voting public that continues to be wary.
A cabinet shuffle became necessary; a chance to sideline some weak performers while moving those with stronger images and communications skills to portfolios where they can demonstrate a more voter-friendly face. At press time, details of the shuffle were unknown.
Will the manoeuvre pay political and governance dividends for Harper and his small inner circle of planners?
He does have some holes to fill and weak links to strengthen.
Saskatchewan will need a new cabinet representative since revenue minister Carol Skelton will not run in the next election.
Defence, as a Harper priority issue, needs a more articulate and convincing advocate than Gordon O’Connor. Several other Harper ministers have been less than dynamic, although to be fair, his control-freak style of government gives them little opportunity to shine.
But cabinet shuffles can be risky business, not always a path to better government or more public confidence.
Sometimes, they breathe life into a government by adding new ideas and energy to the mix. Famously, Lester Pearson’s April 4, 1967 decision to add both Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien to the ministry helped set the scene that allowed the Liberals to hold power for 28 of the next 38 years.
Chrétien’s decision in 1996 to bring in outsiders Pierre Pettigrew and Dion in the aftermath of the close Quebec referendum result helped calm a government in crisis and a country in angst.
But cabinet shuffles also can backfire and be interpreted by the public as a sign of government weakness. They can create internal dissension among supporters of demoted ministers.
Harper has picked the team that he will take into the next election campaign, expected in spring 2008 but which could be held as late as autumn 2009.
And since the majority of Canadians still haven’t warmed up to him, the prime minister would be well advised to give this recreated team some leash to show Canadians the Conservative government is more than a one-man show.
