On Politics and Qualifications

 Back in July, I wrote an extensive piece advocating for all but removing the party system from our parliament. In other discussions the topic of qualifications and expertise came up - the general gist of it was basically whether or not a government formed as I proposed would have the requisite expertise needed.  I feel that this warrants a bit more discussion. 

First of all, I want to point out that our current system simply does not guarantee that anybody we elect to the post of MP (or MLA) has any particular expertise for any particular post. One only has to look at people like Jason Kenney, Pierre Poilievre, Michelle Rempel, or any of a dozen back bencher MPs from other parties, and ask "what particular expertise do these people bring?".  When Kenney was Minister of Immigration, did he have any particular expertise in the area of immigration?  No, he did not. In fact, we have an entire system of government built on the idea that one does not need any particular expertise in order to govern. In theory, anybody can become a politician, regardless of education, experience or anything else - they basically have to be good at being visible to the voters. 

Much has been made of Justin Trudeau's "lack of experience and qualifications". Yet, Justin Trudeau holds not one, but two degrees, and has actual work experience in a profession. Jason Kenney? Well - he's been a fixture in the political circuit ever since he dropped out of an undergraduate degree. Yet both men sit at the apex of their respective parties. 

Traditionally, politics has been dominated by men, and those men have mostly been either lawyers or businessmen. Lawyers seem to be attracted to politics in part because of an interest in creating the laws that they work with professionally; businessmen often seem to engage because they see power as a tool to achieve their goals. 

But in truth, even those two groups of people seldom have "expertise" in the various mechanisms of government such as policy creation, or managing topics like foreign affairs.

So, how do I propose we address this?

In my first piece, I advocated for what amounts to a "Parliamentary University" model where a newly elected MP would find themselves spending their first year working as interns for the outgoing MP, with a fairly heavy course load teaching them the basics of an MP's job. Naturally, this is not intended to guarantee that the new MP has the knowledge or skills to guide a portfolio in the executive (Cabinet) ranks.  

However, what many readers seem to have missed is the idea of strengthening the advisory portions of the professional bureaucracy so that MPs and Cabinet Ministers alike have far better supports than they do today. The point being that if a Cabinet Minister wants to take a particular action, they have access to people with the expertise to advise them on the strengths and weaknesses of that action, as well as alternative policies and directions. In other words, we don't expect Ministers to be domain experts in their portfolios, but we take steps to ensure that they have access to a group of people who are, and whose job it is to assist the government of the day in implementing its goals - and this group are non-partisan with a variety of perspectives and backgrounds. (e.g. We don't just put a bunch of bankers into place to guide Finance)

What About Long Term Direction?

The model of government I am proposing quite deliberately takes a step away from "grand visions" and "long term goals".  There is a reason for this.  For the most part, our governments are 'caretakers' in the first place. Their first job is to ensure the day to day guidance of the apparatus that keeps the nation running.  If that apparatus is working smoothly, it's much easier to set direction because you aren't constantly fighting the waves from the last major change of course. 

One of my criticisms of the current system is that we aren't getting "long term goals", we're being fed political ideologies (especially from the increasingly rigid right wing).  Perhaps more concerning is the degree to which ideology has come to be policy, rather than informing policy. One only has to look at how Jason Kenney has done things during the COVID-19 pandemic for an example. It is no secret to anybody that the government has ignored evidence and expertise entirely, and has only implemented half measure solutions when the public outcry becomes so loud that it cannot be ignored. It appears to be absolutely the case that the government is making decisions purely on the basis of a particular ideology, rather than having that inform decision making while still taking into account the facts, evidence, and opinions from other perspectives. 

When we allow ideology to drive decisions to the exclusion of all else, we get these chaotic swings as new governments are elected, often with the goal of tearing down whatever the previous government had done.  We are seeing this in the current election cycle where the CPC is talking about "repealing" numerous laws passed by the Liberals, as if they are some kind of massive problem. Parties do not reflect the broad swath of the public mood - even their policy conventions are carefully curated in advance to create a specific image.

Long term direction of the government is going to become a more incremental process.  One that takes place in incremental steps rather than major shifts of direction (outside of crises like the outbreak of war, or a pandemic).  What we will end up with is a more consensus driven government that reflects where the people of the nation are at, rather than the particular subset of people who are part of a specific party.

While parties might, to some degree, be able to recruit and retain expertise that is aligned with their particular perspective, that doesn't mean they have "the best possible answers" - or even reasonable answers - to issues (again, one might look at the cozy relationship between one Jack Mintz and the UCP in Alberta. Mintz might have a lot to contribute, but he also needs voice at the table who speak in contrast to him because his own perspective has blind spots too. 

As for "grand visions" such as Pierre Trudeau's "Just Society", let's face the reality that those kinds of visions are rare, and even fewer are the times when such a person arises and is able to drive that vision to any kind of meaningful realization. In Alberta, Peter Lougheed set out a clear policy vision for how Alberta should handle its oil revenues only to have his successors tear it down and gut it for paltry political ends (namely extending their own power).  

Government cannot be about building some kind of idealized "utopia" - reality is far too messy for that.  Government needs to be focused on ultimately doing the most good for the most people while navigating the circumstances of the day. Let's stabilize things so that we aren't constantly swinging from one crisis to the next - often created by the very politicians we elect to govern in the first place.