Part scholarly critique, part memoir, Ian Brodie's At the Centre of Government is an accessible, often entertaining, sometimes scathing antidote to the narrative that Canada is subject to dictatorial power at the hands of the prime minister. Few people are better positioned to challenge academic orthodoxy about the relative power of the prime minister than someone who is both a political scientist and a former chief of staff to the prime minister (in this case, Stephen Harper).
The book tackles the idea advanced most famously by public administration scholar Donald Savoie and popularized by journalist Jeffrey Simpson that the modern prime minister has centralized power to the detriment–indeed, virtual irrelevance–of Parliament and even cabinet. The mix of academic thought and personal insight Brodie advances is compelling, though as I explain below, not always convincing. The book successfully alternates between scholarly analyses, such as a section on the history of cabinet government (13–25), and insider anecdotes about Harper era events–a brief account of a disastrous meeting between Stephen Harper and former Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is one of many highlights (43).
At the Centre of Government is persuasive at dispelling the idea that there was a golden age of democracy in Canada where Parliament prospered from robust, ideal-type deliberative and accountability capacity. Brodie also marshals evidence to push back at the centralization thesis, including an examination of the increased capacity of private members to advance their own bills and motions (96–101). The book is perhaps most effective at attacking an unstated premise of the prime minister-as-dictator thesis: that any one person could possibly micromanage a set of cabinet ministers, let alone all major governmental decisions. The practical realities of government Brodie draws from with his first-hand account show that cabinet ministers enjoy ample room to set priorities and make decisions, a point which is reiterated throughout the book (see, for example, 52).
While the book is framed as a critique of the centralization idea, it is also a staunch defence of certain aspects of the status quo. Brodie does not deny that prime ministers enjoy significant power; rather, he wants to convince the reader that neither responsible government nor democracy have become threatened by it. Prime ministers, Brodie explains, must always be involved in four key areas: fiscal policy, foreign relations, relations with provinces, and the management of business before Parliament (28). Sections on each of these in the book are both illuminating and engaging.
Brodie's defence of partisanship and strong leadership for parties are perhaps the most passionate parts of the book. Here, the author is convincing in parts and less so in others. His account of the necessity of team unity, particularly in messaging, rings true: quite simply, success in electoral politics, particularly in the case of the newly unified Conservative Party, hinged on competent and strong management. This did not mean that individual MPs were reduced to trained seals. Brodie writes that “[a]ttending caucus meetings restored my opinion of Canadian democracy each week,” (135) and although he acknowledges it is a shame that the confidential nature of those meetings means Canadians cannot see them in action, the influence of the party caucus is evident in other ways, and Brodie spells out the legislative influence of backbenchers during the Harper government (139).
Yet the question of whether there is excessive party discipline is as much a normative question as it is an empirical one, and the book becomes less convincing when it evinces more normative claims. In a section on partisanship, Brodie notes that “not every citizen is suited to being a partisan” and he basically reduces non-partisans to either “loners who prefer the unfettered liberty of living life alone … without needing to be part of a larger human enterprise” or people who “feel so certain of their own righteousness that find they cannot make the kinds of compromises needed to work within a political party” (150). This is simplistic at best and a caricature at worst. Members of non-partisan legislatures like Nunavut and the ‘new’ Senate of Canada have demonstrated ample capacity for political compromise (Brodie has a section on recent Senate reform and is quite critical of it, but his appraisal is too short to be persuasive. In my view it has functioned smoothly and in a less activist manner than in the past, such as during the Mulroney era).
Further, many arguments to enhance the role of individual MPs are neither premised on the elimination of parties nor opposed to the spirit of compromise. In fact it is party discipline in Canada that is often uncompromising. In the first half of 2018 alone, MPs from each of the three major federal parties (NDP MP David Christopherson, Liberal MP Scott Simms, and CPC MP Maxime Bernier) were punished or threatened with punishment for acting or speaking out on long-standing matters of principle. It is not self-righteous to believe that parties should better accommodate dissenting views rather than squash them.
Different readers will take exception to different parts of Brodie's argument. While it may not serve as the final word in the debate on the power of the prime minister, it is, overall, an excellent and much-needed contribution to it.
