One of my broadcast colleagues suggested this week that we talk about “leadership” what does it mean, what defines a leader, what enables a leader, what are the visual cues that create elite leadership candidates, what is the role of media in defining leadership, etc.

I thought it was a great idea so I’ll give it a shot.

In my opinion, leadership is about vision and showing the way forward. Leadership is about the ability to influence behavior. Leadership is about the ability to make decisions and to defend those decisions. Leadership is about personality and the ability to communicate. Some lead by force of personality. Others are unable to lead because their vision and ideas are blindsided by their external persona.

Television has become a maker and breaker of leadership potentials. Physical appearance, voice, mannerisms and other influence how we react to leaders.

In recent decades, we’ve had a plethora of good and bad political leaders in Canada. Some have led with the benefit of majority. Others have managed to push forward progressive programs and legislation without the luxury of majority.

War and crisis produces great leaders. Hitler settled on the wrong side of reality and morality but he was able to mobilize a huge population of people to his will. Churchill was able to convince the people of Great Britain that there was hope in defiance.

Kennedy was able to convince Americans that religion was not an impediment to leadership and more importantly, that Americans could lead the world by example, whether it be landing a man on the moon or resolving the issue of racial equality.

Pearson was a great leader moving forward some of the most progressive legislation in Canadian history from a position of minority government. During his five years in office he oversaw introduction of the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, Medicare, the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and the Maple Leaf Flag. And, he did it all without ever winning a majority government.

Pierre Trudeau was a leader who ruled by mystique. He was intellectual, contemptuous of ordinary convention and independent of normal human needs. People loved him or hated him. Rene Levesque was a great leader and Lucien Bouchard was a great leader, not because they represented goals that I would share but because they were able to mobilize great numbers of people to their cause.

Louis Robichaud was a great leader because he was able to turn New Brunswick towards a more inclusive and embracive form of governance. His Equal Opportunity Program popularized taxation and opened the doors of education and healthcare to everyone.

Mulroney was a reaction to John Turner and the perceived end-of-office patronage abuses of the Trudeau era. In the days before Airbus, he was perceived as a strong leader, able to drive the North American Free Trade Agreement on the back of a weakened John Turner.

Chretien followed Mulroney and ruled for years because the conservatives were divided and Canada was wary of the Quebec separatists. He best demonstrated leadership when he announced that Canada would not send troops to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He was also a near-failed leader in the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Paul Martin rode to office as a potential leader. He forfeited his potential by over-reacting to the Quebec sponsorship scandal and vengefully targeting Chretien people who were perceived as close to the scandal.

Barack Obama proved himself a leader by winning both the Democratic primaries and the U.S. presidency but more importantly, by quickly offering a way forward for Americans struck by the circumstance of economic decline.

Stephen Harper had the potential to be a great leader. He had forged the merger of the old Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservatives. Sadly, he could not get beyond his partisan distaste for traditional Canada and his love affair with Bushian conservatism.

Events of the last few weeks are unprecedented in Canadian history. It started with Harper’s “economic update” flawed by financial projections, an attack on government funding of political parties, an attack on the public service’s right to strike and an attack on the notion of pay equity, the idea that women's work is just as valuable as men's.

This week, the Federal Liberal Caucus, supported by riding presidents across Canada declared Michael Ignatieff, interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and potentially, the next Prime Minister of this country. His election as leader is a reaction to Stéphane Dion’s failed leadership, failed in the sense of his ability to communicate and failed in the sense that he was unable to influence those who might have subscribed to his vision of the future.

The next few months should be very interesting.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com