The question of Stephane Dion's dual citizenship is not so much about split loyalties (though I think in general it is a valid question to debate, even if Stephane Dion's own loyalty to Canada is not in question), but about how Stephane Dion has allowed a debate to become dominated by intrasigence and belligerence.As Andrew Coyne points out, there is no question of Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion's loyalty to Canada:
Anyone who questions Stephane Dion's patriotism is either a fool or a scoundrel. After the service he has done this country, after the abuse he has suffered in its name, to cast even the slightest doubt on his loyalty to Canada shames those who would try. There can be few Canadians who believe in their country more, or have done more to defend it.
But there is a legitimate question of erosive effect holding dual-citizenship can have.
Here's the problem. A lot of people feel terribly uncomfortable with the prime minister holding dual citizenship. Andrew Coyne puts words to those feelings:
Viewed in this light, Mr. Dion's decision to remain a citizen of another country, France, even as he seeks to govern this one, is a legitimate public issue. It would be absurd to suggest this places him in any real conflict of interest. But it is fair to ask: What is the message this sends to other Canadians?
The message one hopes public figures would wish to send is this: that Canadian citizenship is a precious thing; that it is not only a gift, but a vow; that we are a nation, or must be if we hope to amount to much -- a compact, if you like, binding all 32 million of us to each other in common cause. We do not merely populate this half of the continent, as if we had nothing to do with each other. Rather, we are engaged, even as we pursue our own individual destinies, in a great collective venture, the construction of a society based on justice and committed to do its part in advancing the human prospect.
So what is the erosive effect I mentioned? The one on Stephane Dion. He clearly does not want to give up his French citizenship:
Stephane Dion yesterday dismissed questions about his dual citizenship with France, saying he has proven he has "100%" loyalty to Canada, and he doesn't appreciate anyone questioning it.
The new Liberal leader told reporters he does not see the need to renounce his French citizenship and brushed off inquiries about a potential conflict of interest, saying such a possibility was "impossible" even if he were prime minister.
He snapped when a reporter raised New Democrat MP Pat Martin's opposing opinion on the matter: "He may keep his opinion to himself. I am proud of who I am, and I am fully loyal to my country. I think I have proven it, and no one will question it."
He snapped. His dismissed. He brushed unappreciated questions off.
Reporters will ask the question. Polls will be published dwelling on the issue. Other parliamentarians will find sly ways to needle him on it.
Eventually, Dion might well give up his French citizenship, if just to shut everyone else up (perhaps to have it restored once he is no longer a potential prime minister).
But for it to get so far will embitter Stephane Dion. He has staked a great deal on the position that he does not need to give up his French citizenship. If he is forced to back down on this, it will rankle him. The reporters who brought up the subject, the advisors who recommended he give it up, entire provinces who polled as being strongly opposed to dual-citizen prime ministers -- they will all go on a list of enemies. Perhaps not intellectually, but this is clearly such an emotional subject for Dion that I can't believe he wouldn't harbour ill feelings, despite himself.
And that to me is a big problem. Part of being a leader is to know oneself. To know when he or she is making decisions based entirely on emotion, and to when the debate has become dominated by emotional content. To know when he or she is no longer acting, well, rationally.
Stephane Dion has allowed emotions to dominate this debate, and in particular, his own emotions. He seems to have become intrasigent instead of firm, belligerent instead of resolute, and that makes me wonder just how ready he is to be a leader.
