Patrick Brown was a symptom of a broader illness

When writing a political obituary, which this is only in part, it’s customary to be as civil and kind as possible. But sometimes that is not justified and Patrick Brown is a case in point.

Brown has left the PC leadership race again, this time presumably for good. He says he can’t battle for the job while defending himself against charges being made by some dark conspiratorial forces within his own party, never mind sexual misconduct allegations he denies. He also says his friends and family are suffering from the stress involved in his controversial leadership bid.

All that may be true. But Brown was warned repeatedly about what would happen if he re-entered the leadership race against advice from all corners. His claims of moral high ground are hollow given he had to know what would happen if he put his own ambitions ahead of the party’s welfare. We can certainly empathize with his friends and family, but he is the one who put them in this position — no one else.

As for the party, it now wants us to forget all about Patrick Brown and focus on the more legitimate visions put forward by the remaining four leadership candidates. Not so fast. Brown happened within and because of the current party leadership and management. Some of those who share responsibility have already jumped ship or been thrown overboard, but interim leader Vic Fedeli wasn’t wrong when he spoke of ‘rot’ in the party’s upper echelons. No doubt the remaining candidates think voters will forget about the party’s complicity in Brown’s many alleged sins, especially given the unpopularity of the longgoverning Liberals.

That may fly with loyal partisans in the leadership race, but we’re betting it won’t go over nearly that well during the looming election campaign. The PCs may yet find washing their hands of Patrick Brown won’t be that easy.

There’s a lesson here for political parties, and for citizens in general. If Patrick Brown is a symptom of an illness that pervades Canadian politics, the disease is the way parties choose their leaders. It’s broken, and allows the climate where a Brown, or Donald Trump for that matter, can find fertile ground.

In Canada, prior to 1920 or so, Westminster parliamentary tradition dictated that party leaders were chosen from within the ranks of party caucus. It was the federal Liberals who, upon the death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, decided to try a leadership convention at which delegates would compete and vote. It seemed a good idea, but it has also led to the status quo in which leaders don’t feel much of a sense of loyalty or accountability to their own caucus. They’re hired by the membership at large, not by their caucus colleagues.

Another feature of the status quo: Money. Lots of it. Having candidates compete in a delegate style leadership race and convention also allows them to seek and bring in donations and sell memberships. Obviously, members recruited by a leadership content tend to vote for that candidate. And it’s not uncommon for some of those memberships to be transient, but the rent-a-members still pay. Parties would be loath to turn their backs on the kind of money, so don’t expect them to embrace this idea.

But the irrefutable fact is that the Brown debacle would never had happened had his caucus elected him and had the right to recall and dismiss him.

Perhaps it’s time to look to the past for a solution to this particular modern problem.

If Patrick Brown is a symptom of an illness that pervades Canadian politics, the disease is the way parties choose their leaders. It’s broken ...