º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍø

Company No. 2 had a bombastic CEO who left unwillingly in 2021 after a controversial four-year term. Since then, the courts have found him to be a sexual abuser and fraudster, and he faces even more serious charges. He regularly lies and demeans competitors, colleagues and international partners. While he is popular among the company’s rank-and-file, his former executives believe he is unfit for office. Would you rehire him?

Company No. 3 has a competent, decent 81-year-old CEO showing signs of physical and possibly cognitive decline. Many key managers have lost confidence in his ability to serve. While most respect him too much to speak out, some are becoming vocal about their concerns. Would you negotiate a succession plan?

In business, the path to such decisions is clear — if the company had good governance. But in politics, the parties led by Justin Trudeau, Donald Trump and — until recently — Joe Biden have all faced a daunting dilemma: removing a leader against their will is incredibly difficult.

Why does this matter to citizens, businesses, workers and communities? In turbulent times, we need effective leaders who can make smart economic, social and environmental decisions. To get such leadership, we need to solve a problem: those who govern us are often terrible at governing themselves.

The challenge involves both structure and culture. Mass-market leadership selection processes are superficially democratic but increasingly distorted by third-party spending, disinformation and demagoguery. Transparency and accountability mechanisms are weak. And the tribal culture of politics leaves even party grandees fearful of speaking their minds lest they be ejected from their clans.

Corporate governance, in contrast, has improved significantly in recent decades, driven by collaboration between business, investors, academia and regulators. After high-profile episodes of corporate malfeasance, we now have widely accepted standards for many governance processes. These include fiduciary responsibilities, codes of conduct, conflict resolution, independent directors, leadership selection and succession, risk management, whistleblower policies and disclosure rules.

Major democracies urgently need their political parties to improve their governance. Political leaders should be more accountable to their caucuses, and their governing boards — as long as the bar to force a leadership change is suitably high.

Unlike zero-sum battles such as electoral redistribution, rival parties share a common problem: they are increasingly vulnerable to making poor — sometimes disastrous — leadership decisions. It’s not surprising that new political talent is becoming harder to find, and that parties find themselves at risk of being taken over by rival factions.

While change may seem far-fetched today, pundits once thought the same about the Reform Act, 2014, championed by Conservative MP Michael Chong. While the Act gave Canadian MPs greater independence, including the power to review their leaders, the governing Liberals chose not to give their MPs this authority.

This issue that should transcend partisanship, because addressing governance would benefit all parties — and all citizens. This is an ideal role for party elders who no longer hold elected office or staff roles, in partnership with schools of politics and public policy, and independent volunteer activists who are free to speak their own minds. The movement could start as a coalition of the willing; it would gather momentum through intraparty elections and leadership races, and culminate in legislation.

To return to my opening question, most people wouldn’t join any board with poor governance. That’s why the challenge falls to our parties: the change must begin from within.

Daniel Tisch is the CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, a former senior policy adviser in the federal government, and a certified corporate director.

EDITOR’S NOTE – July 22, 2024 This story has been updated to reflect U.S. President Joe Biden’s standing down for re-election.