CKNW Editorial
for June 22, 2001

I’ve been surprised at the naivete of some listeners who have phoned and written to the effect that cabinets ought to be made up of the very best candidates … that competence be the only criterion. They chide me for cynically observing that it isn’t, not by a long shot. Quite apart from all other considerations I don’t know what yardstick you would use to determine who were your most competent people.

This sort of belief is, I suppose, all right for a Grade 10 Social Studies student but if he or she does think that way it’s because they’ve been badly taught.

I wonder how the "competence" people would feel if there were no British Columbia ministers in the federal cabinet? The same way, I daresay, as people of northern BC would feel if they had no minister in Victoria.

Competence is certainly a criterion but only one and perhaps not even the most important.

Let’s look at another area – the Supreme Court of Canada. Why were there, traditionally, three French speaking judges (it’s now required under the constitution)? Because Quebec has a civil code and the rest of the country has common law?

Well, that may have been the stated reason but it’s certainly not the real one. Civil lawyers have no problem judging civil law cases and vice versa. Besides the vast majority of cases on appeal to the top court have nothing to do with the Civil Code. No, the reason was political – three judges for Quebec was the unwritten rule just as the unwritten rule has it three from Ontario. The prime minister will always try to get good lawyers but when it comes to many appointments, he confines his search to a particular area of the country. Does anyone seriously think that a US president appoints his cabinet after using only the criterion of competence? Could Mr Bush leave New York out, for example? For that matter, a presidential candidate scarcely uses competence as the only guide as to whom should be vice-president. If nothing else, Spiro Agnew proves that.

Look back at 1942 when the Allies had to decide who would be the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces. Was Dwight Eisenhower selected because he was obviously the best man? Of course not – he had never in fact ever heard a shot fired in anger. He was selected because Churchill knew, much as he disliked the reality, that the top man had to be American. That Eisenhower turned out well is true – but if Churchill had had his way it would surely have been Alanbrooke.

Suppose Mr Campbell were to decide that the 28 most competent people in his cabinet were all white males from the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. Does anyone really believe that he could get away with appointing an all white, male cabinet, from those areas?

There are a number of considerations. General competence is one but only one. Perhaps the best proof of this is that Premiers and Prime Ministers, when selecting cabinet ministers, go for advice to their political advisors, not administrators of government departments or professionals in the areas to be administered.

Here are some of the considerations.

Given the availability, there must be women. You cannot get away without having 50% of the population represented.

Again, given the availability, different ethnic backgrounds come into it. Particularly large ethnic groups.

There is the geographical consideration – if as a party leader you want political support from an area you’d better see that it is remembered.

Loyalty to the team is important. I’m told that one of the Liberal caucus that everyone thought would get a full portfolio but didn’t, was left off the big list just for this reason.

Length of service counts – while it doesn’t guarantee a post it helps.

Where the minister sits in the political spectrum of the governing party is a big factor. Mr Campbell has had to be very careful not to offend the several wings of the BC Liberal Party that even the most casual observer knows about. This is why, after a leadership contest you will often see fellow competitors who had no profile before the convention, elevated to cabinet. It’s not that the new leader suddenly becomes aware of that rival’s skills … rather he sees the extent of that person’s strength in the party and his ability to make mischief if not suitably rewarded. Indeed, one of the cardinal principles of politics was pronounced by L.B. Johnson about J. Edgar Hoover when he said "I would rather have him inside the tent peeing out than outside peeing in".

Popularity with the public counts. It’s Paul Martin’s popularity in the Liberal party and with the rank and file Grit that keeps him in cabinet every bit as much as his competence.

And money counts. Does anyone seriously suppose that trade unions would not have some of their people in an NDP cabinet? By the same token, business that contributes to the Liberals expects to see a few friendly faces.

Is this all cynicism?

This a reality – a political reality which, if not observed, means big trouble for the leader.

It’s not a perfect world and cabinet making is not a precise science. As matters proceed, a leader sees new needs or old ones inadequately filled. He always hopes that he can fill his needs with competent people but he knows that there are many other factors.

This is what makes it so puzzling that Mr Campbell, who did so well with his first cabinet in most respects, would not have appointed one Chinese-Canadian … Ida Chong in particular. She would also have brought Victoria to the cabinet table.

It is, of course, open to one to hold that competence should be the only criterion for a cabinet post but it should be known that it isn’t, it never has been and it never will be.