What Makes a Leader Fit to Lead?

The installation of a new national leader is a momentous occasion with far-reaching effects for citizens and residents. Whether by election or appointment, the choosing of this person is usually fraught with indecision, bias, and the desire to somehow influence the outcome; the future of the nation hangs in the balance, after all, and everyone wants to end up with the scales tipped in their favor. Given that a candidate wins fairly, their success implies that electors or other stakeholders have determined their fitness for office.

But we are only human. Despite the magnitude and significance of duties assigned to the national leader, sometimes we misjudge their ability to get the job done in the right way. So, as a major Canadian election is about to conclude, it’s worth asking: what makes a leader fit, or unfit, to lead?

Though social and political turmoil can make certain traits more valuable in leaders, there are some desirable characteristics that stand the test of time. Competence, integrity, and charisma tend to be universally sought. Most people also recognize that a leader should be practical, objective, empathetic, and perceptive. Historically, a combination of these traits as well as a clean track record, a good education, and a plan for improving the lives of constituents were the factors that determined electability. But the digital age has enhanced the level of scrutiny that leaders face; their entire track records can be dug up and publicized, and a single adverse incident can be damning for some electors.

Three schools of thought can be entertained when it comes to the impact of a leader’s history on their current position. The first is that a leader is a trustee for their constituents; so long as the results of their policies serve the population that elected them, their specific policy positions don’t matter. This view is in tandem with the sentiment that it is impossible for voters and candidates to agree on everything, thus voters should focus on the leader’s knowledge, experience, and character. In contrast, the second view values the means as much as the ends; the elected leader is a delegate representing the electorate, and should be expected to implement certain policies in order to achieve results. Proponents of this view tend to disassociate a candidate’s personal choices from their electability, at least to the extent that their choices don’t indicate something negative about their character. The third position fixates more closely on the personal and political opinions of each candidate; because advocates of this electoral methodology feel strongly about the views they evaluate, they believe these opinions are an indicator of a person’s fitness for office. A person’s minor actions and opinions, or lack thereof, could be, according to this view, disqualifying factors.

For clarity, these views will be referred to as “results-oriented,” “means-oriented,” and “opinion-oriented.”

A results-oriented person would think a person unfit for office if they believed a certain action or opinion was an indicator that a candidate did not have the right character to represent voters, or lacked the knowledge/experience to adequately shape the future of a nation. For example, some voters would consider Justin Trudeau, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and current Prime Minister, to be unfit for office based on his involvement in the SNC-Lavalin affair. It is alleged that he improperly asked and pressured the then-Attorney-General of Canada to offer SNC-Lavalin- a company which had been charged with bribing millions of dollars to Libyan government officials during the administration of Muammar Gaddafi- a Deferred Prosecution Agreement rather than proceed with a criminal prosecution, the latter of which allegedly had the potential to bankrupt the company. Trudeau both took responsibility for his actions and defended them as an effort to maintain Canadian jobs; even though some voters may agree with him on policy, they may not be convinced that, in the event of a major decision without a black-and-white answer, he would make the appropriate choice in the best interests of Canada. Though the controversy temporarily put the Conservative Party of Canada ahead in the polls, it seems that the scandal has largely died down.

Many supporters of Andrew Scheer, the Leader of the Conservative Party, are means-oriented voters. Scheer’s past and current opinions are not without political controversy; he used to oppose same-sex marriage, is consistently pro-life on the issue of abortion, and has a record on marijuana policy that is not in alignment with the views of most Canadians. However, the Conservative platform has changed in recent years and Scheer has often voted against his personal views or has chosen not to appeal policies implemented by more liberal administrations—presumably in the interest of more accurately representing his constituents. Another candidate with means-oriented voters is NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who has been praised for his policy proposals. Given that he is able to follow through on his promises, which are arguably more ambitious than Trudeau’s were in 2015, he stands to become an example of a delegate more accurately representing the views of young and minority voters in Canada.

Criticisms of Scheer as a candidate fit for office are often opinion-oriented. He has in the past compared the recognition of equal marriage to calling a dog’s tail a leg—that is to say, it is mere semantics and does not validate anything. Justin Trudeau is also criticized under this umbrella; the recent controversy about his history of sporting blackface and brownface in his youth as part of costumes is, for some, a disqualifying factor. This is different from the results-oriented view because the actions or opinions in this category have been either made in the past or are minor enough to not be an indicator of the candidate’s character. Opinion-oriented voters may be of the view that some comments and actions are not possible to recover from, and that an apology is not sufficient to put the issue to rest. They can also argue that abstention from certain key political movements or social demonstrations that reflect the views held by the majority of Canadians, like the recent climate strikes and pride parades, indicate qualities not appropriate in a national leader.

There is some opinion that Canadian elections are less controversial than elections in other nations. Recent shifts in political tides have made elections across the world more radical, with extremist candidates of questionable character. Leaders like this are thriving because the exaggerated perception of growing economic inequality has created a rift between the classes. A distrust of the status quo has resulted in a populist revolution, which is the perfect environment for candidates whose charisma masks qualities (or lack thereof) that may not suit a national leader. Canada finds itself fortunate to be a nation where the basic qualities for fitness are satisfied by virtually every federal candidate in the running and more precise questions are needed to make distinctions between leaders, while elections in countries like the United States have muddied the waters to the extent that the principles of electability have been irreparably diluted.

“Never before in American history has someone so manifestly unfit for office run as a candidate for one of the two main parties.” It’s difficult to be clearer than that in saying that the current American President is a severely atypical candidate. Donald Trump has defied almost every historical standard for the qualities of a national leader. His actions as president have consistently raised debates about his competence and stories from the past and present have put his integrity into question. With him as an example, one wonders what is occurring: are the standards of what a leader should act like dissipating, or is this a fluke scenario of the standards being disregarded?

There are no Canadian candidates that come close to Trump in their level of atypicality; the controversies that some are involved in do not match the magnitude of Trump’s scandals. In all likelihood, the mistake of Canada’s neighbor in electing someone without the historically appropriate qualities to be a leader has made Canadians more scrupulous of chicanery and grandiosity.

Of the three methods of evaluating a candidate’s electability discussed above, none are patently wrong. In fact, it is important that these different views exist because they encourage voters to think more critically about what they believe in regard to a leader’s fitness. It is unlikely that Canada will elect a prime minister that Canadians will come to unanimously regret, and in the lack of consensus there will always be differing views on who can shape the nation’s future in the “right” direction. It is up to each voter to decide for themselves the kind of leader they want to rally behind, and to vote accordingly.