What makes a great prime minister of Canada? What makes a poor one?
What are the key factors that determine success or failure? For that
matter, what do we assess, or measure: - length of time in office? -
deeds accomplished? - disasters avoided? - popularity with the public?
- accolades from political peers? - respect from subsequent historians?
The premise of the book by J.L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer, two
eminent Canadian historians noted for their contributions in the fields
of national political, military and diplomatic history, is that the
collective judgment of academic scholars is a sound means of determining
the success of our country's prime ministers. In 1997, they conducted
a survey of 26 Canadian scholars - political historians mostly, with
a couple of narrative political scientists thrown in - to determine
a comparative ranking of the 20 individuals who have served as Canada's
prime minister. The respondents were asked to rate the PMs on the familiar
scale of 0 (for total failure) to 10 (for enduring greatness). The results
of their survey were published as a leading article in the April 21,
1997 issue of Maclean's magazine. Granatstein and Hillmer then expanded
that article into this 200-plus-page book, with individual chapters
for each prime minister except the four immediate successors to John
A. Macdonald, whose combined service from 1891-1896 is disposed of in
one chapter.
Although actual point totals are not produced in either the original
Maclean's piece or this followup book, the authors tell us that the
consensus of their panel of experts (which included themselves) pointed
to William Lyon Mackenzie King as the top-ranked Canadian prime minister.
Apparently 14 respondents placed King either first, or tied for first.
The other two leaders earning their "Great" rating (an A-plus
surely) were John A. Macdonald (2nd) and Wilfrid Laurier (3rd). A fourth
PM, Louis St. Laurent, was awarded a "near-Great" grade, perhaps
the equivalent of an A-minus. The "High-Average" (B?) leaders
were Pierre Trudeau (5th), Lester Pearson (6th) and Robert Borden (7th)
respectively, followed by the "average" (C?) prime ministers:
Brian Mulroney (8th), Jean Chretien (9th), John Thompson (10th), Alexander
Mackenzie (11th), R.B. Bennett (12th) and John Diefenbaker (13th). Two
prime ministers, Arthur Meighen (14th) and Joe Clark (15th) scraped
through with a "Low-Average" (D?) Rating. Those PMs adjudged
to be failures (F for sure) were Charles Tupper, John Abbott, John Turner,
Mackenzie Bowell and Kim Campbell.
How did this panel of professorial pundits arrive at their collective
judgment? According to the Maclean's article, they were not given precise
criteria, but were asked to consider "electoral success, national
unity, success in achieving domestic or foreign policy goals, and leadership
in cabinet, party and country." (p.35). These ratings, the authors
report at the beginning of their book, were then "averaged to form
a ranked list." In addition to the numerical scores, each scholar
was asked to "write a commentary, justifying his or her rating
" (both p. 9). The comments of the academics were utilized throughout
the five-page Maclean's spread to buttress the authors' own remarks.
The book, while adhering to the prime-ministerial ranking of the earlier
article, is more clearly the authors' own creation, although an occasional
panelist's quote finds its way into the chapter-length biographies.
How did the experts do? The absence of actual point-totals tells us
that this is not meant to be a scientific survey meeting rigid statistical
criteria. Furthermore, upon what basis was the so-called panel of experts
chosen? The authors are silent on the point, other than to note that
five are relatively younger scholars, and that together, the panelists
represent the several geographic regions of the country. An actual list
of 25 names was appended to the Maclean's article, indicating the presence
of five female scholars amongst such luminaries as Michael Bliss, Craig
Brown, Desmond Morton, Blair Neatby and Peter Waite. Seeing these names,
we might ask where are the Greg Kealeys and Veronica Strong-Boags? Were
representatives of the "new" Canadian historical establishment
not polled in significant numbers or did they refuse to answer? We are
not told. The lesson is clear. This is not rigorous social science analysis.
It has been written as much for enjoyment as for enlightenment - and
why not? Who said history should be so stuffy anyways? The joy of the
reading is augmented by the inclusion of 27 political cartoons - some
famous, some not - distributed throughout the book.
Surprisingly, a number of the better chapters are devoted to lesser
PMs. Joe Clark and John Turner, frequently savaged in the popular press,
merit full-length chapters that are evenhanded, leaning to sympathetic.
Pierre Trudeau, still alive at the time of publication, and Jean Chretien,
not yet a three-time election winner when the book went to press, receive
the back of the authors' hands, by comparison. Lester Pearson is praised;
John Diefenbaker is, if not defamed, certainly panned. The chapter on
R.B. Bennett is remarkably positive, given the panel's low rating, but
Robert Borden is, at best, damned with faint praise. Clearly, too, the
authors expect Brian Mulroney's eventual rehabilitation. The panel was
harsh on Kim Campbell, but the authors less so - pointing out that the
novelty of her gender first helped, then hindered her national political
career. The one really bizarre rating by the expert panel was to place
John Thompson tenth. He served scarcely more than 2 years in office,
and never won an election as leader. Even the co-authors seem dumbfounded.
In the Maclean's article, they attribute his surprising showing to the
recent appearance of a "fine, modern full-length biography."
(P,35). That professional historians could be so easily swayed casts
more than a little doubt on the validity of the whole exercise.
One prominent aspect of the ranking must be challenged. William Lyon
Mackenzie King was not our greatest prime minister, contrary to the
panelists and co-authors. That honour must be reserved for John A. Macdonald.
Both had flawed personal characters - King with his seances, ouija boards
and crystal balls, Macdonald with his weakness for the bottle. Neither
might even have made it to the office of prime minister in the current
era of fishbowl journalism. Both built a great political party; Macdonald,
however, also built a country - one which King admittedly helped to
preserve. It is quite possible, though, to picture Macdonald managing
the political crises faced by King. One cannot imagine King managing
to pull off Confederation. He lacked the vision, and the personal charisma.
King is deservedly among the top three leaders, on a par with his idol,
Wilfrid Laurier. But one has only to consider the remarkable accomplishments
of King's successor, Louis St. Laurent, during his first half dozen
years in office, to grasp the what- might-have-beens of Mackenzie King's
lengthy time in office. In describing St. Laurent, the authors note
his one deficiency - an absence of deviousness. This quality King held
in spades. King's other specialty, as he mentioned once to an apprenticing
Lester Pearson, was to focus on avoiding bad actions - no small achievement,
but not the full measure of a truly great prime minister. The existence
of the Canadian federation itself is John A. Macdonald's legacy to us.
He is still Number One.
The other book under review here, authored by Irma Coucill, is not in
the same league as that by Granatstein and Hillmer, judged on the basis
of the written content. The author presents one-page thumbnail sketches
of Canada's 20 prime ministers, 25 governors-general since 1867 (excluding
Adrienne Clarkson, who had not yet been appointed), and 36 "Fathers"
of Confederation, defined as those colonial politicians from British
North America who attended at least one of the formative conferences
in Charlottetown, Quebec or London. The first edition of this work appeared
in the lead-up to Centennial year, which explains something about the
boosterish tone of the mini-biographies. Unfortunately, the pages added
for subsequent editions are sometimes marred by inaccuracies. Nunavut
is mis-spelled on page 46, for example. However, the great strength
of this book is not its print, but its visuals - that is to say, the
marvellous full-page, black and white portraits of each leader, all
drawn by the author, herself.
Read the first book for the challenge of critiquing Granatstein, Hillmer
and friends' assessments of our prime ministers. Browse the second one
for the pleasure of Irma Coucill's portraits.