It's been all over the news: movements for a change at the top. Leaders often hold precarious grips on power. Especially if that leadership has been (for lack of a better word) dictatorial. When any leader tries to force policy without at least some ground swell of support, discontent inevitably brews. Sure, in a dictatorship, the demands for change can be quashed for a while. It is common to hear the language of unity and solidarity to justify the directives. In the end though, unless unhappy people are appeased in some way, changes will happen.
Ted Morton wanted his way with the budget. Philosophically, he could no longer bow down to the progressives in the Alberta Progressive Conservatives. There was no worry about opposition from without (the PC dictatorship is strong), but he couldn't penetrate the Premier's call to unity. So, in good parliamentary tradition, having lost confidence as finance minister, he was set to resign. Somehow, the word leaked out and Ed Stelmach found out the plan and hastily stole the spotlight, "I will not seek re-election." It was a fast decision, no time for details of when he would formally resign. Morton quickly quit his plan to resign ... for a day or two anyway: when everything could be re-spun into his need to be unencumbered in his desire to seek the leader's chair. Just because the control everything, doesn't mean we have to believe them.
Oh and we are seeing the same dynamics at work in Tunisia and Egypt.
When will they learn that the 'my way or the highway' style usually puts one on the road?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment