Some recognize the news media machine as another branch of the government because they can comment and criticize certain policies and influence the running of government. This may all seem nice and great on paper but how many times have you seen a government official being asked a tough question where the politician actually answers directly? You know what I mean: the reporter asks how the politician's plan will prevent job loss in sector A, the politician starts explaining that the plan is a great plan for the economy in sector B..... then the reporter moves on to the next question--> the result is that the question was not answered and the politician presented a polished prop to distract the public from the real issues. Another situation is when you see the politician walking down the hallway and several reporters are asking questions and the politician smiles, waves and continues on his walk without giving any answer.
Now I agree that many questions fielded by many reporters can be downright silly. I don't mean the kinds of questions like: "If you were a vegetable, which vegetable do you think you would be?".... these questions may seem silly on the surface but if you want to know a politician in a more personal sense to understand what kind of individual he or she may be.... well the vegetable question can be quite clever and revealing with a mixture of light-heartedness in the mix. No, the foolish question would be more along the lines of: "How many concessions are you willing to make during the negotiations with country X on the issue Y?" This would be along the lines of a foolish question.... and if you don't understand why, stay out of news gathering business until you can understand.
What I would like to see though is that the intelligent questions are answered in a quick fashion. The fun and clever question like the vegetable one can wait during more pleasant occasions. For the serious intelligent ones, they should not be dodged. After all, the current government is there at our request, they are in a manner of speaking our employees, they answer to us. Would the McDonald employee be allowed to ignore his boss when there is an intelligent question being asked about his performance? So why should the politician ignore his boss: the population? The news reporter should have the same access as a government auditor and do a little bit of auditing on whatever department suits his fancy. This means, the reporter can enter the board room of the political machinery while they discuss how to proceed on issue A or B, they can enter the politician's office and take notes. Naturally, the reporter should have this access as well in each of the previously mentioned branches of politics including the bureaucratic sphere.
Extreme? Only if you believe that the population is not educated enough to understand the issues. But I am presenting an extreme, because I would rather have us edge towards that direction to a better middle ground because I see how we are moving towards the opposite extreme, one where the reporter is irrelevant and only a puppet to the government. Where the government's public declarations replace the news investigator.
Notice where the budgets are being cut in the news gathering industries, notice the laziness of many journalists who won't verify the public affairs department's claims on any issue, notice the apathy of the people as they watch and accept politicians who refuse to answer a question except through sophistry and rhetoric.
Conclusion to this week is along the lines that if we wish to see a government divided in multiple branches so that power is not concentrated upon any one branch, we must find ways to strengthen the branches in their independance to each other while at the same time becoming more compliant to its democratic citizenry who feed it. What is going on in a very slow fashion is that the different branches are cross-polinating with each other and are getting ready to bite the hand that feeds them: us. Personally, I won't mind either scenario if I get a nice position within the government structure; but if we want to improve our democratic institutions, we must wake up.
Are you awake?
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Can Bureaucracy be improved?
As I mentioned in a previous blog, the bureaucracy in and around government (public service), could be considered another branch of government. In yet an even earlier blog, I mentioned the flaws of bureaucratic thinking stifling human judgment by an over-reliance upon regulations instead of using the rules as a guideline to determine the right course of action. There are some who believe that the primary purpose of any bureaucracy is to sustain itself and this is irrelevant to what the bureaucracy is mandated to do. For example, a department of social welfare which is mandated to help the non-working poor by providing a bit of cash for survival and some tools to help the non-working poor find some employment will have its mandate at odds with the self-sustaining aspects of the bureaucracy. If there is a decision that would be made to guarantee that the working poor would successfully find employment and no longer need the services of this bureaucracy, then this decision would take a back seat and another decision would be found to continue the same level of funding from the government purse or attempt to provoke an increase in funding.
Remember, this decision made by the career bureaucrat would solve a major societal problem and as a result cut his department by 50%. Who would make that kind of solution available to a politician in charge who will not be there in a few years? This bureaucrat would have spent 20 years in this department and is close with his colleagues who will continue on when the bureaucrat retires. The loyalty to the department is high, so a decision to sabotage the future of that department is not likely to be made or even offered to the politician in theoretical rulership.
Another flaw of the bureaucracy is the unnecessary secrecy or confidentiality on its procedures. For whatever reason, the bureaucrat keeps the mystique alive by not answering the client with the proper help that is needed unless the client uses the special jargon and procedures to get the help needed. The bureaucrat will not volunteer this information, because it is against the regulations to influence a client. The client will not know how to navigate this web of mystery unless he was a former bureaucrat, or has a personal relationship with another bureaucrat who has counselled the client as to what to ask for and when.
One of the first things that any bureaucracy will do is to have the new employee sign a non-disclosure form to keep everything confidential and to only allow the department of public affairs to reveal anything to the public through the media. Naturally, we have such public communications present a positive spin on any developments. So the public is never informed of the options available to them, the minister in charge who has just recently taken over the leadership of this bureaucracy does not know the internal structures and relies upon the opinion of the long-term public servant who may or may not have an agenda contrary to the public good.
When the man was tasered in a Vancouver airport by the RCMP and the man died afterwards, what do you suppose the minister in charge was told about the incident? About the same as what the public was told, the man was incoherent and violent and did not comply with the instructions given by the officers at the scene. We, the public believed the statement (why would we doubt them?), then the video taken by a witness was broadcast around the world, and we saw a completely different event than what was previously stated. This would be an example of a bureaucracy protecting its own interests above all else. Do not assume that other bureaucracies are immune to this kind of practice and that this situation with the RCMP was an exception to the day to day operations. This is an incident that caused the death of an individual and lucky for us that a video testimony was there to prevent the usual confidentiality of the bureaucracy.
Possible solution for bureaucrats to have more loyalty upon their mandate than to self-perpetuate the actual bureaucracy. Reward innovation, if the team of bureaucrats come up with a plan, and as a result of that plan it makes their department obsolete, reward them with lifetime salary benefits as if they had continued working there. Remember the department no longer exists so we save money on future recruiting and training and on equipment. The bureaucrat has the option to get into a new career or schooling or even retirement without loss of his reward.
Possible solution for the confidentiality problem, the culture of silence: again reward a legitimate whistle-blower. If there is a practice which is contrary to ethics and is deserving of public awareness for potential discussion. Encourage the bureaucrat to file a report about it to his manager while keeping a copy for himself. Then the bureaucrat allows a reasonable amount of time to correct the situation. If the situation is not corrected, then the bureaucrat has the duty to inform the public of this illicit or unethical practice. The whistleblower who does find a problem and a solution should be promoted or rewarded in some other way. Again, intelligence, judgment and innovation must be rewarded and not stifled (as it is in the current bureaucratic culture).
Bureaucracies seem to reward seniority or experience. Perhaps we should include innovation and judgment in the equation. You may find a brilliant innovator promoted before a 20 year experienced bureaucrat who only repeats the same technique blindly. Would this be so bad? Bureaucracy is the grease making the government machine working. It is in everyone's interest to have better scrutiny on this "grease" and reward this "grease" if it performs above its normal function.
Remember, this decision made by the career bureaucrat would solve a major societal problem and as a result cut his department by 50%. Who would make that kind of solution available to a politician in charge who will not be there in a few years? This bureaucrat would have spent 20 years in this department and is close with his colleagues who will continue on when the bureaucrat retires. The loyalty to the department is high, so a decision to sabotage the future of that department is not likely to be made or even offered to the politician in theoretical rulership.
Another flaw of the bureaucracy is the unnecessary secrecy or confidentiality on its procedures. For whatever reason, the bureaucrat keeps the mystique alive by not answering the client with the proper help that is needed unless the client uses the special jargon and procedures to get the help needed. The bureaucrat will not volunteer this information, because it is against the regulations to influence a client. The client will not know how to navigate this web of mystery unless he was a former bureaucrat, or has a personal relationship with another bureaucrat who has counselled the client as to what to ask for and when.
One of the first things that any bureaucracy will do is to have the new employee sign a non-disclosure form to keep everything confidential and to only allow the department of public affairs to reveal anything to the public through the media. Naturally, we have such public communications present a positive spin on any developments. So the public is never informed of the options available to them, the minister in charge who has just recently taken over the leadership of this bureaucracy does not know the internal structures and relies upon the opinion of the long-term public servant who may or may not have an agenda contrary to the public good.
When the man was tasered in a Vancouver airport by the RCMP and the man died afterwards, what do you suppose the minister in charge was told about the incident? About the same as what the public was told, the man was incoherent and violent and did not comply with the instructions given by the officers at the scene. We, the public believed the statement (why would we doubt them?), then the video taken by a witness was broadcast around the world, and we saw a completely different event than what was previously stated. This would be an example of a bureaucracy protecting its own interests above all else. Do not assume that other bureaucracies are immune to this kind of practice and that this situation with the RCMP was an exception to the day to day operations. This is an incident that caused the death of an individual and lucky for us that a video testimony was there to prevent the usual confidentiality of the bureaucracy.
Possible solution for bureaucrats to have more loyalty upon their mandate than to self-perpetuate the actual bureaucracy. Reward innovation, if the team of bureaucrats come up with a plan, and as a result of that plan it makes their department obsolete, reward them with lifetime salary benefits as if they had continued working there. Remember the department no longer exists so we save money on future recruiting and training and on equipment. The bureaucrat has the option to get into a new career or schooling or even retirement without loss of his reward.
Possible solution for the confidentiality problem, the culture of silence: again reward a legitimate whistle-blower. If there is a practice which is contrary to ethics and is deserving of public awareness for potential discussion. Encourage the bureaucrat to file a report about it to his manager while keeping a copy for himself. Then the bureaucrat allows a reasonable amount of time to correct the situation. If the situation is not corrected, then the bureaucrat has the duty to inform the public of this illicit or unethical practice. The whistleblower who does find a problem and a solution should be promoted or rewarded in some other way. Again, intelligence, judgment and innovation must be rewarded and not stifled (as it is in the current bureaucratic culture).
Bureaucracies seem to reward seniority or experience. Perhaps we should include innovation and judgment in the equation. You may find a brilliant innovator promoted before a 20 year experienced bureaucrat who only repeats the same technique blindly. Would this be so bad? Bureaucracy is the grease making the government machine working. It is in everyone's interest to have better scrutiny on this "grease" and reward this "grease" if it performs above its normal function.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)