The tried-and-true measurement to use to assess the worthiness of a mayor, a premier or a prime minister seeking reelection is their continued willingness to be politicians.
Besides the unending scorn of cranky voters, politics and governing is hard work, fraught with both risk and uncertainty. The incumbents deserving of consideration for another term in office have the same fire in their belly as they did the day they announced their candidacy.
From that standpoint, voters need to give a hard look at Stephen Harper this fall.
The federal Conservative leader has clearly fallen into the trap (and trappings) of political leadership, where the ambassadorial role become far more fun and interesting than the administrative role. It's easy to be an ambassador because it doesn't involve much more than a nice suit, a boring tie, a firm handshake and the appropriate look of concern/engagement/humor the situation and present company require. A patience for formality, a willingness to travel, especially outside of your jurisdiction, and an eagerness to give speeches are essential.
The G7 meetings in Europe and a quick visit to Ukraine are just the latest examples where Harper has demonstrated his increased unwillingness to be the prime minister. Why stay home and work on tough stuff like Senate reform, updating or scrapping the Indian Act, and drafting new legislation on doctor-assisted suicide when there are international meetings to attend and Russian leaders to lip off?
That's right, Vladimir Putin, he's talking to you but don't worry about it - Canadians aren't listening to Harper, either.
Canadians have never wanted their prime ministers to be presidents and that remains true to this day. In the republic model, the president stands apart as a balance, along with the Supreme Court, of the legislative bodies. In the parliamentary system, the prime minister, as the job title explicitly states, is in the trenches with the rest of the ministers, the first among equals, working on the daily business of government. Put another way, Canadians prefer their prime ministers to be statesmenlike but not statesmen because statesmen see themselves as above that messy business of politics.
Harper has been prime minister for almost a decade. He came into office eager to engage in both policy and politics in equal measure, yet his interest in doing both seems to have waned during his majority term as prime minister. Perhaps it was the uncertainty that came with a minority government that kept him sharp and on his toes before but he now seems increasingly detached from voters and even the foot soldiers in his own party. He's gone from despising senators and the Senate to apologizing for both. Where once he chastised government for spending millions promoting itself, he now devotes more money than ever to advertising and his personal YouTube channel. He's gone from apologizing on behalf of all Canadians for the tragedy of residential schools to saying nothing when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission finds Canada guilty of genocide and provides the documentation and personal stories to back that charge up.
At the height of their political arrogance, even Jean Chretien, even Brian Mulroney, even Pierre Trudeau, didn't delegate as much as Harper appears to. Even when those former prime ministers handed off the mundane policy work, they never backed away from a political fight and relished lacing up the partisan gloves and going toe-to-toe with all comers. Among a growing number of Conservative supporters, they'd rather see Harper wipe the floor with Justin Trudeau in Question Period than see yet another petty attack ad.
That approach comes with risk, however, because when you're looking to give somebody a black eye in the political arena, it could be you that ends up with your butt on the floor. The longer Harper gets his mail delivered to 24 Sussex Dr., however, the more reluctant he's becoming to taking political risks and playing to win.
The hockey historian in Harper should know better. There's a big difference in mentality between winning and not losing. One focuses on success and accomplishment, the other focuses on fear and failure. Not only is Harper increasingly playing not to lose, he's spending too much time in the front office managing the team instead of on the ice, where victory and defeat are really decided.
