In a totalitarian regime, it’s justified to blame the dictator for all the injustices and prevarications against the people; however, if there's a dictator in a democratic country, it's justified to question the character of the people and the effectiveness of the institutions. Accusations of dictatorial behaviour and cult of personality against Prime Minister Jean Chrétien have been lingering for years in Ottawa, and lately they have been increased on the Hill and in the media.

            “For Chrétien, it’s all about Chrétien,” writes Richard Gwyn on his popular column on Jan. 30, in The Toronto Star. Mr. Gwyn is one of the most respected political commentators in the county and I share most of the concerns expressed in his aforementioned column. However, that’s only one side of the equation.

            A dictator in a democratic country is a political oxymoron. Mr. Chrétien is not ruling the country with an iron fist; in fact he always tries to interpret its mood and then legislates accordingly. If there is a problem with Mr. Chrétien’s leadership it's the other way around: he follows the crowd, he doesn't lead it. He always tells the people what they want to hear and gives them what they need instead. That’s one of the two reasons he has been re-elected three consecutive times.

            It is true, however, that he is ruling the government and the House of Commons as the CEO of a corporation where he is the only shareholder. But it’s not the Prime Minister who is usurping other people’s rights; he is only filling the vacuum left by the inability of others to articulate an alternative. And this is the second reason why people keep voting for the Liberal Party: lack of any alternative. So can we blame him for not creating an alternative to himself? I believe that this should be left to others to do and by “others," I mean MPs, media, and opposition parties, and not the Canadian people. The Prime Minister is not the cause of the problem, he's only exploiting the problem to satisfy his ego.

            Take a look at the second last cabinet meeting when Mr. Chrétien told his regional ministers how to run the Liberal Party (The Hill Times, Jan. 28). Such behaviour is unacceptable, however, did any of those present stand up to tell the Prime Minister that a cabinet meeting is about the country and not the Liberal Party?

            Furthermore, many are now complaining about Mr. Chrétien's intentions to participate in this past weekend's meeting of the executive of the party and to "put pressure" on members. He used the government to do exactly the same thing at a cabinet meeting and nobody objected to it, so how can they complain when he puts pressure in the proper forum, within the party?

            As well, the Prime Minister is accused of muzzling his caucus. Sure, he does. But can somebody explain why complaints arrive only from former or would-be ministers? If I remember correctly most of his colleagues justified John Nunziata’s expulsion with his flamboyant attitude and a sour-grape revenge for not making it into the cabinet. They — including Mr. Nunziata — also voted in 1993 in favour of a motion to give more power to Chrétien in choosing the candidates and they also voted in the House to support all the bills “proposed” to them by the Prime Minister’s Office.

            Some would dispute the fact that those bills were not proposed or imposed by the PMO. And I say, right. What do they think, that they'd be under house arrest or kicked out of the country? Or was it the dangling carrot of a cabinet post which has now rot?

            Many were quick to tell the story outside the caucus about the Prime Minister savaging Carolyn Bennett, one of their own. So why did they not intervene in the caucus to defend her? If it was that bad, and it was, why did nobody stand beside her inside the caucus? Again, what stopped them from taking any action? Was it the threat of castration or the danger of killing the possibility to become caucus chair, committee chair or chair of something? It seems to me that Prime Minister Chrétien is not muzzling the internal debate for the simple reason that there is nobody willing to debate him on real issues inside the caucus and outside the Liberal caucus.

            In fact, can we blame Jean Chrétien if the Canadian left is disconnected from the electorate and Alexa McDonough seems to be always running for the riding of Calcutta-South to replace Mother Teresa. Is it Chrétien’s fault if the right is unable to articulate an alternative and the members of their two or three caucuses spend more time fighting with each other instead of fighting the government? How can they be trusted by the electorate to find a leader for the country, if they don’t even know the name of that leader themselves?

            Stockwell Day is not the leader whom many people were expecting, however, they chose him and only a few months later returned to the people saying, ‘Sorry, we made a mistake, let’s try again.' Besides, Mr. Day was thrown into a nasty leadership race because the former leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, refused to go by the rules of his own party and call for a leadership review. Why is everybody terrified of reviews? Immediately after, Mr. Day was thrown into an electoral campaign without having the time to put together a proper team and proper candidates. Furthermore, he had to face a media more interested in his abolitionist views than the policies he was trying to put forward.

            And while we're at it, why don't we blame Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella for dishing up the dirt on the Canadian Alliance and his former leader. The reality is that Mr. Kinsella was giving us exactly what we wanted: dirt.

            So, if we have government MPs more interested in defending the illusion of future cabinet appointments rather than the dignity of their present status. And if we have an opposition whose only leader appears to be Joe Clark and whose only electoral achievement is the one of losing “only” half of the caucus he inherited when he arrived. And if we have a media more interested in talking about the direction the Niagara River or the cost of RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli leather boots, more than the investigations he is heading up, it explains why we want to create a paper tiger dictator to camouflage our inability to take our own responsibilities.