Why generals (and others) should avoid politics
Possibly Andrew Leslie, had he known what he was getting into, might have thought better of this whole politics game. The former Canadian Forces general has been the subject of unrelenting criticism since it emerged that the military had picked up the costs for him to move house after he retired. I doubt he has ever before had his integrity so publicly questioned. It must be an unsettling experience, especially coming from a profession that places such high stock in notions of personal honour — unlike, say, politics.
Still, if it were to deter him, or others like him, that might be no bad thing. There is something a little disquieting about senior military commanders borrowing the prestige of their office to advance themselves in politics. Part of the reason the office carries such prestige is the selfless, country-first patriotism it evokes — an image that sits uneasily with the us-and-them tribalism of partisan politics. The military, perhaps more than any other arm of government, must be free of any taint of partisanship: because of the stakes, and because of powers it possesses. Anything that casts that into doubt should be cause for concern.
On the other hand, it is even more disquieting to see someone with such a distinguished record of service, so recently one of the nation’s highest-ranking officers, being attacked in such harsh and demeaning terms, not least by the minister of defence himself, Rob Nicholson. No one is immune from criticism, but it matters how, by whom and for what. Were Leslie guilty of some corrupt act, that would be one thing, but the minister’s comments have been so out of proportion to the facts of the case that they look a lot like what one suspects they are: a highly partisan government attempting to kneecap a potential star candidate for the opposition before he gets started. (Leslie is currently listed as an adviser to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, but is expected to run for Parliament in the next election.)
This is quite different from the Duffy affair, to which it has been glibly compared. Sen. Duffy was arguably within the letter of the rules, at least with regard to his housing allowance (the RCMP might beg to differ), but was clearly in violation of their spirit. With Leslie, it is the reverse: he is clearly within the letter of the rules, but may have offended their spirit — though it is hard to say exactly how.
There is no question of special treatment: the benefit of which he made use is standard for retiring veterans of all ranks. If the bill seems large, at $72,000, it is only a reflection of the value of Leslie’s Ottawa house: Most of the move’s costs would have been in real estate broker’s fees, which on a $1-million property seem about right. The most damning suggestion, that the program was intended to help veterans move “home” from their last posting, and not, as in Leslie’s case, across town, appears nowhere in the regulations; nor does it appear to have been tacitly understood, given that more than a dozen of Leslie’s fellow generals have claimed the same benefit, in similar circumstances.
The program can certainly be faulted for being too loosely administered, and has been — among others by the auditor general. (As an aside, this is one of the reasons it is usually better to pay people in cash, rather than in benefits.) But as for Leslie, the worst that can be said is that, in picking up that last tranche of his compensation, he showed poor political judgment: It looked bad, at a time when other veterans are struggling.
But a general shouldn’t have to be thinking of how things will look. To fault him for his political judgment now is to suggest he should have been using it then: that he should have been thinking, even then, about his future political career. I’d prefer to imagine he wasn’t, but having entered the political world, Leslie inevitably exposes himself to this charge: not only that he was thinking about it then, but that he was thinking about it all along, even as a serving member of the military. And if he can be suspected, after the fact, so can others, prospectively.
The effect will be to encourage people to sift through the actions, not only of Leslie but of other senior officers, looking for signs of political ambition. It will further encourage the Conservatives to believe their enemies lurk everywhere in government — in the Bank of Canada, in the courts, even in the military — and to justify their own increasing politicization of these offices in turn, as a kind of self-defence. After this, and previous flirtations with elected office on the part of Mark Carney and Louise Arbour, it is impossible to say they are wholly wrong.
Ideally generals, like Bank of Canada governors and Supreme Court judges, would refrain from later political careers, if they were not formally precluded. I realize there are precedents: Leslie’s grandfather, Andrew McNaughton, crossed from army general to minister of defence in the Second World War, while in our times generals Romeo Dallaire and Lewis MacKenzie both entered politics after military life. I do not think these necessarily disprove my point. We should not have reason to doubt the motives of our most senior military officers, retired or serving, in a time of conflict: Consider how Rick Hillier’s words were parsed, as chief of defence staff.
But fine: if they are to be involved, can they not at least be allowed to remain a little above the fray, in deference to their former office, restraining their own partisanship and preserved from the lowest partisan blows in return?