Stephen Harper is a skilled cabinet-maker, writes Jonathan Malloy,
While past prime ministers have tended to shuffle at short notice and seemingly randomly, Harper has been much more deliberate, writes
When teaching Canadian Politics, I often play a cabinet- making game. I pass around four envelopes marked “Region/Province,” “Gender,” “Talent” and “Relationship with PM”; students draw a random card from each envelope and each ends up with a unique configuration such as “Ontario/Female/Highly Competent/Supported Leadership Rival.”
Appointing myself prime minister, I then select a handful of students to be in my cabinet. I call out for the single student who has “Prince Edward Island” and tell them they are immediately in cabinet since by convention every province has at least one minister. I find the individual with the “Earliest and Most Loyal Supporter” card and immediately appoint them; hilarity ensues if their talent card reads “Not That Bright.” I bring in my main leadership rivals but freeze out all their supporters. For balance I may call for more “women from the West,” etc. If I have to choose between a “Highly Competent” supporter of a rival or a less-gifted loyalist, I explain why I might choose one over the other. In the end we end up with a reasonably desirable group but there are always some oddities to discuss.
Monday’s cabinet shuffle didn’t exactly work that way, but it’s not far off. Like all prime ministers, Stephen Harper must form a group out of his caucus that can operate in solidarity and provide collective leadership, but also head complex government departments and portfolios, all while reflecting the country and especially its regional nature. For all the talk about PMO centralization, cabinet ministers remain very important players and central to the day-to-day operation of a vast federal government. And in fact, cabinet-making often shows Harper at his best.
Stephen Harper has taken a very deliberative approach to cabinet-making. While past prime ministers have tended to shuffle at short notice and seemingly randomly, Harper has been much more deliberate. We have known for a year that this midterm shuffle was coming; when vacancies have arisen (such as Bev Oda’s resignation), he was not tempted into making sudden impetuous overhauls. By baldly asking ministers about their retirement plans, he was able to plan for the long term and give poor performers such as Peter Kent a graceful exit. In short, cabinet-making is a bright spot in a government sometimes prone to very impulsive moments and decisions.
Harper cabinets emphasize merit over cronyism. Politics is still central; Monday, he rewarded the loyal soldier Kevin Sorenson from Alberta over the more independent-minded James Rajotte, but Harper’s appointments are more meritbased than many prime ministers’. He is of course aided by having no serious rivals and the seemingly universal confidence of his party; possible successors such as Peter MacKay or Tony Clement are merely aspirants, not serious threats, and so can be given important posts without worry. In contrast, the cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were deeply shaped by the rivalry between their two camps — leaving many talented MPs out, and other less-than-talented MPs in, depending on who they supported.
Not needing to please others also means that Harper cabinets are more purely reflective of his approach to government. We see Harper’s technocratic, policy-wonk side in his deliberative approach to cabinet-making. But we also see other less admirable aspects in the way the prime minister keeps such a tight grip on his ministers, especially their media appearances, and appears to completely trust only a very few ministers.
Monday’s shuffle confirmed that there are three main tiers in the Harper cabinet. The ascension of James Moore to the inner circle was affirmed with his promotion to Industry; by staying at Foreign Affairs, John Baird appears to continue to have the prime minister’s confidence; and we know the renamed portfolio of “Employment and Social Development” is very important because Jason Kenney holds it. These three ministers appear to have licence to roam freely and speak at will. Beyond them is a second tier of ministers that seem to be trusted within their portfolios, led by Jim Flaherty and newly shuffled veterans such as Rona Ambrose and Diane Finley, but who also seem to know their place within the tight Harper system. Finally, and like all cabinets, there is an outer tier comprising the up-and-coming and the demoted, ranging from several newly promoted women to the badly fallen Christian Paradis (moved from Industry to International Development).
Overall, Harper appears to have assembled a strong and renewed group in this latest round of the cabinet-making game, but it remains to be seen how he uses them.
This is a government with many good intentions and a record of sound decisions, but also dark impulses and some serious trust issues. But cabinet-making itself brings out the best in Stephen Harper, and hopefully he will in turn make the best of this new team.
Jonathan Malloy is chair of the Department of Political Science at Carleton University.