Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 11, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A9 SATURDAY JANUARY 11, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights Trudeau and the trouble of competing loyalties T HE unsurprising news about the planned de- parture of Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader and prime minister got me to thinking about the meaning of, and the interactions in practice among, the three big phenomena of leadership, followership and loyalty in political life. Each of the phenomena is complex, variable and contentious. Whole forests have been sacrificed on the topic of leadership, with many different theories and models of ideal leadership contending for ascen- dancy during different time periods. For a long time, the idea that all successful leaders possess certain personal traits and an identifiable set of skills held sway. Recently it has been more widely recognized that leadership is more a collective group process than a set of individual characteristics. In that process, individuals motivate and influence one another while working toward a shared goal or purpose. In this model, the distinction between leaders and followers becomes blurred. Influence flows in both directions and in certain situations followers become leaders. Leadership involves more than just occupying a formal role within an organization. However, we should not be deluded by recent talk of breaking down the hierarchy, teamwork and empowering followers. There is always someone who makes decisions and shapes the culture and interperson- al climate within an organization, which in turn mould the behaviour of others. How leadership is understood and practised depends on the context in which it is happening. Too little attention has been paid to the personal qualities, knowledge and skills required of politi- cal leaders than to leaders of corporations. Recently scholars have moved away from a fixation on leaders and are paying more attention to the crucial role of followers in terms of how they define their roles and how they may impact leaders. Just as there are different types of leaders, followers fall into different categories. A lead- ing study identified five styles of followership: sheep, who are wholly passive; yes-people, who enthusiastically do what the boss wants; alienated followers who think the leader is taking the orga- nization in the wrong direction; pragmatists, who go along to get along; and stars, who think for themselves, have high positivity and energy and are prepared to offer constructive criticism. There cannot be enduring successful leader- ship without committed and loyal followers. In general loyalty involves identification with and support for a person, an institution, an idea, a duty or a cause. Loyalty involves both attitudes and behaviours. It can reflect a character trait, develop as an emotional attachment, or reflect calculation about what is at stake. Transferring these thoughts to the political realm would take more space than is available here so some brief points will have to suffice. Politics is conducted as a team sport involving loyalty and cohesion. As the head of a competitive party, leaders gain office by election, which sets them apart from most other leaders. The head of the leading party in the House of Commons normally becomes prime minister and acquires a range of prerogatives, such as the appointment of cabinet that provide leverage in relation to followers. Our politics have become highly personalized with success heavily dependent on the personal- ity, communications style, image and reputation of the party leaders. Identification with the party, recognition that they have been elected on the coattails of their leader, the career incentives that exist for team play and the adversarial pro- ceedings of the House of Commons, all combine to produce high levels of party solidarity. For example, over 90 per cent of the time MPs vote along party lines. Critics argue there is too much blind loyalty which weakens the institution, limits accountabil- ity, sometimes contributes to corruption, erodes public trust and over time damages the perfor- mance of leaders and parties. Loyalty is easiest during the good times, but it is most important when leaders and their parties experience political troubles such as those faced by Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. A recent national poll placed support for the Liberals at 16 per cent, the lowest in the history of the party. There was a pending confidence vote in the House of Commons which in all likelihood the party would have lost, forcing an election. Instead Trudeau sought and appropriately obtained from the governor general a prorogation that paused the work of Parliament until March 24. This gives time for a leadership contest and a chance for the party to establish the outlines of a new policy agenda. The current crisis provides a dramatic illustra- tion of how leaders and followers must wrestle with competing loyalties. Liberal MPs had to decide whether their primary loyalty was to the current leader, the long term future of the party, the interests/opinions of their constituents or the interests of the country facing the tariff threats from the incoming Trump administration. For the ambitious among them, calculations about career advancement probably shaped decisions about where to place their loyalty. Trudeau had governed during an exceeding- ly difficult time. His government developed a positive, but unfinished policy legacy on files like child poverty and reconciliation, which was a source of pride and loyalty. Despite becoming highly unpopular personally and with his party trailing badly in the polls, he nevertheless sur- vived several high profile cabinet departures and bouts of caucus unrest, which likely drained the prior deep reservoir of loyalty to him as leader. Success and survival probably reinforced feelings of entitlement and indispensability on his part and delayed recognition that his continued leadership had become untenable. Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba You don’t always have to have a hot take — or share it RECENTLY, I was chatting online when someone in Norway asked if we had noticed how many people active on social media felt the need to have an opinion about everything — whether they’re experts on the topic or not. Sometimes people feel they must hold forth, touting activism that aligns with their politics, but then something unforeseen occurs. Oc- casionally, these social media posts get wide distribution and go viral. For the poster, they’re forever linked to an opinion that may, or may not, still align with their professional or personal values. For popular influencers, thousands of followers see hot takes that might be completely bogus opinions instead. Even if the influencer does research before posting, I’d like to see the footnotes or primary sources for some of these claims. Also, was the post paid for by someone else? When an influencer drops a hot take, it’s possible it’s just paid advertising that they didn’t even write. Was it always this way, even before the internet existed? Yes, but not with such wide reach. People sat around a fire or women worked in a kitchen or at a quilting bee. They spoke their minds, but their opinions did not leave the community with speed. Yes, newspapers and letters passed along the gossip. Telegrams and phones helped it along. Some reporters and editors might have been un- ethical and paid to publish certain takes, but even newspaper distribution was limited. Social media reach has much wider, faster distribution. Small, regular community gatherings are less common today. Instead of a limited-distribution sharing of opinions, people do this online. Online, opinions from people who may know nothing about a topic, but felt the need to expound to gain attention, proliferate. What causes those posts to get traction? Those with racy news, memes, graphics, better written communication, more followers, all get farther with their posts. It isn’t because all the ideas have merit. Critical thinking and education go a long way in enabling people to slow down, analyze infor- mation and discard nonsensical claims that they encounter. For instance, bleach and Ivermectin didn’t seem like safe medications to anyone who did even cursory research. Yet, during the pan- demic, potentially harmful “cures” raced across the internet for those who felt desperate enough to suspend their disbelief. When some get their information online only through social media, this suggestion to slow down and do research before reacting can be a tall order. I was faced with this experience more than once when I asked people I knew in real life why they posted certain viewpoints as fact. Some told me I was flat-out wrong about events abroad and to go “educate myself” on the issues. Taken aback, I followed up. I asked whether two relevant academic degrees, time spent living in the geographic region, basic knowledge of one language spoken there and rudimentary knowl- edge of a second was enough education to form an opinion? What else did this person advise? When I asked earnest questions and called them on the flip response, the answer felt ob- vious. Their response was silence. I had been edu- cated at universities. I likely knew more than my adversary’s social media take. More than once, the contact vanished when faced with questions. Aside from university study, we can do more on our own. Reading widely, analyzing what you read and relying on real sources beyond Wikipe- dia can be a good start. Yes, these are big-time investments. It’s also possible to pause before hopping on an activist bandwagon. Sometimes we might not know all the information we need to form an educated opinion. That’s OK. Waiting a news cycle or two can be helpful. Also, consider if posting about the issue will affect one’s career or social prospects in the future. An ill-advised Facebook post can come back to haunt someone years later. Is it worth it? The second approach might be a return to the in-person gatherings of the past. Everyone can have opinions in smaller spaces. Those speaking out with a small group of locals can have their say without the internet amplification. We learn a great deal through debate, if we feel safe to hold a spirited exchange with those we trust. We still need community spaces. It’s a shame when one sees curling clubs, churches, legions and Odd Fellows halls up for sale. It might be worthwhile to leave home more often and get into a neighbourly conversation at the community centre, place of worship, school gym or bar. We’d benefit from opinion airing and learning, without the online risks. True, we risk real viruses in per- son, but our ideas wouldn’t go viral online without proper vetting first. For those isolated due to health or geography, consider using the internet without being on blast. Make your social media accounts private or create a family and friends chat. Don’t allow your ideas to be broadcast worldwide. Give smaller spaces for feedback a chance. We must use our brains and academic rigour to understand an increasingly complex scene of global conflicts and climate change. We also need to rely on people we trust to help put our ideas in context. We’re not experts on every topic. It’s OK to decide that you’re not ready to have an opinion on something until you know more about it. Relying on those you trust, as well as taking time to do research, can help us over the long haul in an age of 24-7 news takes. Don’t rely on social media alone to “educate yourself.” In the long term, those influencer hot takes may cause deep regret down the line. Joanne Seiff, a Winnipeg author, has been contributing opinions and analysis to the Free Press since 2009. JOANNE SEIFF PAUL G. THOMAS THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Monday he will resign as Liberal leader and prime minister as soon as a new party leader is chosen. ;