One thing that Premier Wynne has that no Tory has yet articulated pertains to what she thinks the role of government should be in society. The Premier often peppers her speeches with her desire to “make government a force for good in people’s lives.” What might the Tory response be to this statement? Is it “I agree”?
The Premier uses her quick sentence as a way to suggest that government is good, that it should be activist, and that activist governments will undoubtedly do more things. This sufficiently sets up her contrast, which is that less government is bad and that smaller government will hurt vulnerable people.
Let’s marvel at that for a second. A short, quick statement about the size of government turns into a principle that guides the policy decisions of her government. It’s a call to action. Liberals do this so well.
The Tories, in contrast, lack that kind of clarity and consistency in their approach. The closest we get to answering this question about the appropriate role of government in society is that government has grown too big and we need to make it smaller to fix the deficit. That answer falls well short of what is needed.
Most people will expect you to spend wisely, but they want world class public services. It’s too easy an inference, then, to say that we need to balance the budget by reducing the size of government and equating that with inferior public service. Less government means worse government in other words. Since when did that become the prevailing ethos? Why don’t we ever contest the belief that bigger is better? The conservative movement’s inability to counter this argument has been a major drawback.
Let me explain why bigger is not better.
First, what tends to happen when organizations grow is that they will add more front line workers AND layers to the bureaucratic organization. In times of restraint, what tends to happen is that, in order to save money, bureaucratic organizations will start by reducing the number of people on the front lines (there are more of them and that makes it easier to achieve fiscal projections by doing so) and keep the people at the top. The organizational pyramid, in other words, looks less like a proper pyramid as governments grow.
Put it another way, ask any nurse who works in a hospital setting what happens when the hospital is mandated to reduce costs. They will undoubtedly tell you that, whenever it happens, nursing jobs are the first ones to go. The upper and middle layers survive, but the front line staff is reduced. In effect, government that grows unchecked will invariably lead to worse service delivery because it will become too managerial. De-layering (reducing) middle and upper management, while bolstering the front line service, has been effectively shown to produce better results.
Second, one of the problems that arises in any organization is self-absorption. What this means is that organizations become more preoccupied about existing than they are about doing what they’re supposed to be doing, which in the case of government is public service delivery. Because we have a permanent bureaucracy in Canada, it is susceptible to self-absorption. We deal with that by having rotating political masters who are supposed to protect the public interest. However, if political masters are so self-consumed by the wants of the organizations they lead, self-absorption takes priority over the delivery of good public services. There aren’t many times where we’ve seen the government check against self-absorption over the past decade.
Third, a related problem to self-absorption is the necessity for political and bureaucratic elite bargaining. What this means is that any policy change that’s desired by voters can only be agreed to through political and bureaucratic elite negotiation. When this happens, the popular will of voters becomes a secondary or tertiary concern. Whenever you discuss elite bargaining, democratic concerns become evident insofar as the negotiated agreement has supremacy over parliament.
Look at the example of education policy in Ontario. Other than Bill 115, there has not been an education policy in Ontario that has proceeded outside the negotiation table. For awhile, there appeared to be congruence between that level of negotiation and public opinion. Now, that’s no longer the case. As costs have increased exponentially, and results have either flat lined or declined, the public is growing weary of the government’s ability to improve education. And, as resources are reallocated to satisfy elite negotiation, the likely outcome for parents will be to give something up in order to satisfy elite demands rather than improved student success. So, fundamental reforms to improve math education, for example, are not likely to emerge unless the nature of education policy development incorporates the concerns of the voting public. Big government prevents this from taking place.
The final thing we know about governments is that they like to create new rules and regulations. Yes, regulation is a necessary evil, but too much regulation can take too much time away from actually doing what needs to be done in terms of service delivery. Too much regulation is a symptom of big government. If you talk to front line workers, they will tell you that they spend a lot of time filling out forms and documenting everything. Talk to enough of them, and they’ll start to tell you that they don’t even know what the government does with all the information that they’re providing. The time spent on paperwork could be better spent with students and patients and the very citizens that require the public services that government offers.
Now, yes, that was overly academic, and you don’t have 900 words to explain these things to a public that has been conditioned to think the opposite of what you may believe. That’s why it is necessary to develop short statements on these things so that you start to get people to think that bigger government stifles better government.
What might these statements look like? Big governments have too many managers and not enough front line workers. Big governments are big bureaucracies that care more about themselves than you. Big governments mean you have less of a say on the kind of government you want. Public servants need the freedom to be great at what they do. A savvy politician can come up with a series of easily justifiable statements that defines the principles that guide their beliefs.
You will note that I haven’t talked about big government in the sense that it costs a lot of money. Conservatives have always talked about big government as part of a fiscal equation. I will devote my next post to discuss the fiscal mess. However, for the time being, let’s focus on what people want. People want a government that provides world class public services only for the things we need. Renewal should begin with something close to that sentiment.
N.B. I am not involved in any of the 2o15 PC leadership campaigns and have not endorsed either of the candidates. I wish all my friends running for the PC leadership the very best in their campaigns.