Vice-Regal Saint: Canada's Most Consequential Prime Ministers
Now that Stephen Harper has surpassed most of history's inconsequential prime ministers and solidified his hold on minority power (one poll had Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition at 22%, a new all-time low for the once mighty Liberals) and has apparently entered majority government territory, we should begin to contemplate what kind of leader he will be, and who he will stack up against. 
I think we non-experts can quite easily rate the political success of statesmen if we understand that a leader's tenure first falls under one of the three Ts: transformational, transactional or transitional. A transformative leader makes a substantive impact on the national progress (or regress) of his country. A transactional leader is a caretaker of sorts, one who may know how to win power, but not what to do with it. Such a leader is more famous for his personality and style, than for any meaningful accomplishment while in office. And transitional leaders have the briefest of tenures (under 2 years), and are either unusually unlucky or found wanting in some regard. Mutually inconsequential, this group can only be differentiated and ranked according to the number of days, weeks or months in power. That out of the way then, here in my opinion, for better or for worse, are the most consequential prime ministers in Canada's confederal history:
Transformational Prime Ministers (measured by substance)
1. Sir John A. MacDonald, Con (Confederation)
2. William Lyon McKenzie-King, Lib (WW2 - Canada's F.D.R.)
3. Sir Wilfred Laurier, Lib (Development & Expansion)
4. Sir Robert Borden, Con (Great War)
5. Brian Mulroney, Con (Free Trade, Foreign Affairs)
6. Pierre Trudeau, Lib (Patriation of Constitution & Charter)
7. Lester Pearson, Lib (Flag, Healthcare, Peacekeeping)
Transactional Prime Ministers (measured by style)
8. John Diefenbaker, Con (Traditionalist/Populist)
9. Louis St. Laurent, Lib (Sound/Sensible/Dutiful)
10. Jean Chretien, Lib (Folksy/Low Expectations)
11. Alexander McKenzie, Lib (Honest/Unimaginative)
12. Richard Bennett, Con (Impersonal/Aloof)
13. Arthur Meighen, Con (Eloquent/Principled)
14. Sir John Thompson, Con (Loyal)
Transitional Prime Ministers (measured by spell)
15. Paul Martin, Lib (26 months)
16. John Abbott, Con (17 months)
17. Sir MacKenzie Bowell, Con (16 months)
18. Joe Clark, Con (8 months, 26 days)
19. Kim Campbell, Con (4 months, 12 days)
20. John Turner, Lib (79 days)
21. Sir Charles Tupper, Con (69 days)
Full disclosure: I’m a diehard Tory and a staunch traditionalist, so you are entitled to read into any bias that you believe might have affected my choice of ranking. Note though that I did struggle on a number of fronts. For example, it is debatable whether Trudeau should rank higher or lower than Mulroney. They both had a major impact - perhaps it would have been fairer to place Trudeau higher, particularly on the unity front. But Mulroney was much stronger on the economy and foreign affairs. Similarly, Laurier and King. Personally, I much prefer Arthur Meighen over King, but all the eloquence in the world couldn’t win Meighen lasting power. Some may feel Chretien should rank higher, given his three consecutive majorities. But what did he do, other than balance the books and almost lose the country in the 1995 referendum? It was especially painful to rank Pearson ahead of Diefenbaker, because Pearson more than anyone vandalized our heritage and institutions, whereas the Chief upheld the greatest respect. However, Pearson gave Canada its modern character, and reality requires that we recognize the impact this had, however insidious.
All that being said, watch for Harper over the next dozen or so years to eventually move into the number 2 spot. Remember, you heard it here first.
Fun fact: Sir John Thompson, while PM of Canada, died in Windsor Castle after receiving a knighthood from Queen Victoria. He was 49.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
8 comments:
It's interesting to note that while most of confederation has been under Liberal ministries (basically 100 of the 140 years), most of the prime ministers have been Conservative (13 out of 22).
Would you be so kind as to supply your definition of Toryism again? I think you shared it with me once before, but I can't recall the specifics.
Burton
Something wrong with comment links. Here goes again:
Burton, the Radical Tory Manifesto (right sidebar under "Weeping Cavalier") tells it all. Today's Conservatives are not necessarily loyalists, but a Tory is. A Tory in the truest sense would be considered a radical today. He believes in the prerogatives of the Crown and the legitimacy of royal powers, he supports the natural family and the maintenance of natural heirarchies over social levelling, he revels in the hope of English parliamentary debate, he's an Anglophile, he might even still support the Anglican Church. Die hard is actually too strong of a term and makes me sound like a Jacobite, but I probably have a greater affinity for Toryism than most Conservatives.
Yes, most conservatives tend to be overly Whiggish or classically liberal - no great problem, compared with being a Grit, or Labourite, etc, but, that said, not exactly harmless either.
What exactly did Laurier do that was so great, other than hang around a long time? I often hear a lot of vague terms thrown around in reference to his rule, but very few concrete examples.
Also, Pearson may have played a big role in Peacekeeping, but he did so before he was PM, not during his rather short four-year tenure. Healthcare was something he opposed, but only approved because of NDP pressure. And Pearson healthcare is virtually unrecognizable from anything we use today.
Both very overrated Liberals in my mind.
Harper is indeed the great hope for those of us in the UK, the US, or Australia, who feared that Canada was going the way of NZ and starting to see itself as a kind of NGO.
But will someone please urge him to get in touch with Blair and Howard and suggest pooling our Iraqi/Afghani contingents into some kind of Commonwealth Force, as in Korea, so that we can actually pull our weight?
Britain was never and is not, and Canada & Australia are not and will never be, great countries in their own right. It is only when we work together that we have been or can be a great people. Perhaps Mr Harper is the chap to nudge us in that direction.
Cato
Bang on, Cato. It's called leverage, and the way to leverage our power is to pool it, instead of relegating ourselves as junior partners all the time.
Laurier did much of the nation-building, Eric. He saw the creation of Alberta and Sakatchewan, created the Royal Canadian Navy, seny a Canadian contingent to the Boer War...as the longest consecutive serving PM in Canadian history (4 majorities), he had a tremendous impact and was a great visionary.
Post a Comment