Evaluating Prime Ministerial Leadership in Canada: the Results of an Expert Survey
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Canadian Political Science Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2013, 13-23 13 Evaluating Prime Ministerial Leadership in Canada: The Results of an Expert Survey Stephen Azzi i and Norman Hillmer ii i Carleton University. E-mail address: [email protected] ii Carleton University. E-mail address: [email protected] Abstract. This article reports the results of the largest sur- Résumé. Cet article présente les résultats de la plus grande vey of expert opinion on prime ministerial leadership in enquête d’opinion d’expert sur le leadeurship concernant les Canada, conducted in 2011. The top-rated prime ministers premiers ministres du Canada, une enquête conduite en were, in order, Laurier, King, Macdonald, and Pearson, who 2011. Les premiers ministres les mieux notés sont, dans were preferred because of their creative records of achieve- l’ordre, Laurier, King, Macdonald et Pearson, qui ont été ment and capacity to see the country as a whole, champion préférés en raison de la popularité de leur résultats et de leur its unity, and make for positive change. Survey respondents capacité à appréhender le pays comme un tout, du faut qu’ils valued transformational leadership that altered the country, ont été champions de son unité, et de leur marque de chan- but did so in a cautious way that did not threaten national gement positif. Les répondants du questionnaire ont accordé cohesiveness. The article makes frequent reference to the beaucoup de valeur au leadeurship qui a permis de trans- international literature on leadership, allowing for compari- former le pays, mais d’une manière circonspecte qui n’a pas sons across a range of countries. mis en péril la cohésion nationale. Cet article fait de fré- quentes références à la littérature internationale sur le lea- Keywords. Canada; prime ministers; leadership. deurship, ce qui permet de comparer avec une gamme de pays. Mots clefs. Canada; premiers ministers; leadeurship. In 2011, we conducted the largest ranking survey of expert posed to a greater number of experts. In 1982, Murray and opinion on prime ministerial leadership ever carried out in Blessing polled 846 historians. Although common in the Canada. The number of respondents was higher than that in United States, such exercises have been rare in Westminster the most extensive survey in the United States, that of Rob- democracies, where there has been little research on prime ert K. Murray and Tim H. Blessing, taking into account the ministerial leadership until recently. In Britain, Australia, smaller Canadian population and the disparity in the size of New Zealand, and Canada, prime ministerial biographies are the academic communities of the two countries. The sample common, but not comparative research. This is beginning to size meant that our findings are more statistically robust change (see Strangio, Hart, and Walter: 2013). Experts are than previous Canadian surveys. By asking more questions increasingly polled for their views on the prime ministers of and polling more experts, we were able to probe deeper into the larger Westminster democracies. The American and perceptions of the prime ministers who have held the highest emerging Commonwealth literature allows us to make com- political office in Canada since 1867. Our survey advances an parisons between the political leadership perceptions of understanding of the performance and competence of Cana- experts from a range of different countries. dian leaders and of the assumptions that experts bring to their work, including how they make their judgements and why they favour certain prime ministers over others. Previous Canadian Surveys The polling of experts to determine rankings of political Prior to our 2011 survey, Canadian experts had been polled leaders dates to Arthur M. Schlesinger’s 1948 survey for Life four times for their views on Canadian prime ministers, magazine, which assessed US presidents. Schlesinger sur- beginning in 1964 with a seldom-mentioned exercise for the veyed 55 scholars, mostly historians, and asked them to use Globe and Mail. Patterned after Schlesinger’s work in the their own criteria to rate the presidents as great, near great, US, the Globe editor asked 10 historians and political scien- average, below average, or failures. Since then, American tists to rate each prime minister as great, near great, ade- experts have been polled more than a dozen times for their quate, or inadequate. No precise criteria were given, and no views on their country’s leaders. Over time, this process has further questions were asked. The exercise generated little become more sophisticated, with more questions being interest at the time and has been ignored since. More than 14 Canadian Political Science Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2013, 13-23 three decades passed before Norman Hillmer and J.L. politics; their numbers included women and men, and indi- Granatstein in 1997 asked 26 historians and political scien- viduals from all regions of the country. tists to rate the prime ministers, also using the Schlesinger In all, 117 experts answered our electronic survey, 57.4 approach. The two reported their findings in a Maclean’s per cent of those we contacted. This rate compares favoura- article and a best-selling book (Granatstein and Hillmer, bly to similar surveys in Canada and other countries. Eliza- 1999) . beth Ballard (1982: 35, 38) had a 41.3 per cent return rate In 2003, Policy Options looked at the prime ministers for her 1982 survey. In New Zealand, Simon Sheppard over the previous 50 years by contacting 30 experts. The (1998: 76-77) had a 40.0 per cent return. Britain’s Kevin rationale for the choice of panellists was far from clear. On Theakston and Mark Gill (2006: 197; 2011: 80) achieved the list were some individuals who were not specialists in 53.8 per cent in 2004 and 60.2 per cent in 2010. The largest Canadian political history, including a scholar of French such survey, that of Americans Murray and Blessing, had a religious history. Omitted were several productive and well- 48.6 per cent response. Our return rate was highest among known Canadian political historians. Two of the Policy Op- historians (61.2% completed the survey), with political scien- tions panellists later politely refused to take part in our 2011 tists (46.4%) and journalists (23.1%) less likely to reply. Of survey on the grounds that they lacked the necessary exper- those who gave a reason for not completing the survey, tise. “I am really not enough of an expert on Canada to be roughly half questioned the value of the endeavour, and able to contribute usefully,” one told us. The other explained most of the rest indicated that they did not believe them- that, although he had taken part in the Policy Options exer- selves qualified to carry out the exercise. cise, he would decline our 2011 invitation. “I was uneasy The questionnaire (see Box 1) asked respondents to rate enough on the previous occasion, but this time round you the overall success of the prime ministers on a 1-to-5 scale, are looking for a more ‘in-depth’ series of judgments, and I with 1 representing “highly unsuccessful,” and 5 signifying really feel under-qualified for the task.” “highly successful.” At this stage of the questioning, we did Psychologist Elizabeth Ballard’s 1982 master’s thesis was not provide criteria for judging the prime ministers, instead the first Canadian study of prime ministers based on a sur- allowing the experts to use their own standards, based on vey of more than 30 scholars. Ballard polled 60 political their understanding of Canadian politics. Survey respond- scientists and 37 historians. She did not ask for an overall ents evaluated the impact of longer-serving prime ministers assessment, instead requesting that the experts rank each (those in office for four years or more) in each of five key prime minister in 10 areas: difficulty of political issues, areas: national unity, the economy, domestic issues (includ- activeness, motivation, strength of role, effectiveness, pres- ing social policy), Canada’s place in the world, and party tige, innovativeness, flexibility, honesty, and accomplish- leadership. We also asked our panellists to list the greatest ments. Ballard’s work suffered from her preoccupation with success and greatest failure of each prime minister, and gave the prime ministers’ integrative complexity, the inability to them the opportunity to explain their rankings. To provide integrate many complex ideas, and the large gaps between context to our findings, we inquired about the experts’ gen- her evidence and her conclusions. As with all surveys before der, age, province of residence, and voting intentions. We ours, she made no systematic attempt to determine if gen- considered asking more questions, but feared that a more der, region, age, or political affiliation had any impact on an time-consuming survey would have resulted in a lower re- expert’s judgement. sponse rate. For the same reason, we did not insist that respondents explain their ratings. The Methodology in 2011 Box 1. The Questionnaire We compiled our list of experts from a variety of sources. Because history is the discipline with the most experts knowledgeable about the full canvas of the Canadian prime Q1. Please rate the prime ministers according to how successful they ministerial experience, we began with the membership list of were in office (5 being highly successful, and 1 being highly unsuc- cessful). Consider only their time as prime minister, ignoring activities the Canadian Historical Association’s Political History before or after they assumed the prime ministership. If you have in- Group, removing those scholars who specialized in countries adequate information to make a judgment, select “DK.” [This was fol- other than Canada. We then added the names of Canadian lowed by a list of all 22 prime ministers.] political historians listed in the American Historical Associa- Q2 to Q14.