The Parallel Parliament

by Glen Pearson

Tag: reform

Budget 2016: A First Step

canadian-mosaic-flag

IN ONE OF THE FUNNIER EPISODES OF THIS MANIC BUDGET WEEK, host Ellen DeGeneres aired a segment showing Canada’s response to the threat of Americans moving up here to escape Donald Trump, titled, “We’re nice, but we’re not that nice.” You can view it here.

The reality is that we might be even nicer at the moment. During an American election season revealing far deeper divisions in the electorate than many realized, this week’s federal budget couldn’t set a more different tone. It was breathtaking in its own way, covering everything from deep investment in Indigenous Peoples to seasonal Employment Insurance programs, from tackling nagging infrastructure shortfalls to invigorating benefits for children and seniors, from beginning to make right the abiding gaps in veteran’s care to opening a new front on fighting climate change. Yes, it has its detractors, but even they were energized by its comprehensiveness.

It’s scope was made possible by the government’s willingness to go into deficit by almost $30 billion to pay for it (almost three times more than the Liberals campaigned on). Many voiced alarm at such a significant dip into the red, but, as this graph points out, we have been in worse situations before. CeMDjJGUYAA3AdK

Following a decade of austerity, many Canadians are hoping for more investment in our social way of life. While both the Conservatives and NDP ran on balanced budget platforms in the last election, Trudeau’s Liberals put it out there that they believed the time had come for some deficit spending in significant proportions. Those who didn’t take to that outlook nevertheless had to come to terms with a Liberal win, empowered by over two million more voters who agreed with the approach.

Just as our neighbours to the south flirted with a less tolerant future, Canada was banking on more inclusiveness. It’s not the first time we showed a certain economic defiance. When in the 1950s we refused to link our currency with the U.S. dollar, as other nations were doing, alarms bells sounded across the nation as we permitted our currency to float independently. We not only survived; we thrived. And when the great rush to deregulate banks helped to drive forward the global austerity agenda, Canada refused and was able to escape the worst of the Great Recession as a consequence.

Whatever opinion one might have of this budget, there is no question that it represents a clear departure from the same old, same old economic policies of recent years – policies that implied we couldn’t afford to strive for our greatest ideals. It was a rationale used by both previous Liberal and Conservative governments to rationalize some of our greatest social and economic ills like lackadaisical environmental reforms, growing poverty, high unemployment, and deep infrastructure decline. Trudeau didn’t just reason that Canadians were tired of underperforming; he ran on that hunch in his election platform, receiving a clear mandate in the process. Rather ironically, it was the very kind of investment plan that even the once draconian International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been supporting.

In many ways were are staking a claim, investing in ourselves and some of our deeper instincts of fairness and equity. The government believed we were ready for it and presented a budget largely to match.

There is just one problem. The budget is one country’s attempt to somewhat swim against the current of a greatly dysfunctional global financial system. All that was wrong with global inequities still remains in place both before and after the Canada’s recent budget. Trudeau is banking on growth to eventually pay back our deficits, but it will take more – much more. Canada must assist the rest of the world, not by mere example, but by articulate and dynamic financial leadership to reverse decades of elitism and the kind of globalization the placed the free market system and not democratic citizenry at the helm of human advancement.

A number of years ago, then Senator Joe Biden made a revealing observation: “Don’t tell me what you value; show me your budget and I’ll tell you what you value.” This week the Trudeau government did exactly that. But it’s only the beginning. Changing the very nature of our global economies is now the next great step.

Witnessing Change is Never Enough

Unknown

YESTERDAY WAS MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY, so we spent some time watching his “I Have a Dream” speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, only three months before John F. Kennedy was slain. The rhythm and passion of his phrases still struck deep chords. He wasn’t trying merely to reconcile various groups of people, but was striving for a world that had a more equitable future.

It’s only proper that we appoint special days to remind us of our ideals and what we believe to be our greatest aspirations, but there’s a difference between honouring someone and participating in changing the world by following in their footsteps. Some people like King and his wife, Coretta, naturally accomplished that, but for the rest of us it is a constant effort to get outside of our own worlds and into the broader one that requires our participation more than anything else.

In his speech King reminded all of us that acts of charity must be angled towards justice and real systemic change if they are to be truly effective. He talked about taking political actions in order to change public policy. As his wife reminded millions not that many years ago, an important part of her husband’s “dream” was ending poverty through societal reformation. When he spoke of his children living in a world at peace with those who don’t judge others by the colour of their skin, it wasn’t some mere sentiment but a plan of action that ultimately cost him his life.  Yet he chose to insert himself into the political debate of his day at a cost of great personal insecurity.

The difficulties in these present days must remind us again and again that it is never enough to have leaders; there must also be co-dreamers. And it is never enough to only dream of a personal world, but of a collective one that strives for justice for all people, in every nation.

One of my great friends in Parliament during my tenure there was Carolyn Bennett, now Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. In a recent interview she was asked how she would know that she had been successful after taking on such an important file. She could have talked about full health on reserves, open education for all indigenous people, or a successful conclusion to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women file. Instead she noted that she would feel truly successful when the average Canadian finally understood the great collective injustice against our indigenous brothers and sisters and had sought to alter their own inactions in order to bring about a better day.  You can listen to that remarkable interview here.

She was right, and so was Dr. King. Our ultimate goal must be to change ourselves, to arc our actions towards justice, self-reflection, and personal transformation.

The picture at the top of this post talks about “witnessing” the dream, but that is never enough. We must be active participants in making it happen, of being witnesses “to” that ideal but taking our own personal risks at shaping a better future.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter,” King said. Well, right now, there are things that really matter before us and no leader, no Prime Minister or President, will change our future unless we participate and shape it ourselves – policy without people is just a platform. Or, as King better put it: “The ultimate measure of a man or woman is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience, but in times of challenge and controversy.” It is never enough to just witness the change; we must be energized witnesses within it.

 

 

 

 

 

Is Leadership Dead?

Leadership-Hero-Leader

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DAYS WHEN LEADERS, through hard work, ingenuity, and personality, could apply themselves to our greatest problems and solve them? Of course there are numerous factors, but the reality remains that our greatest difficulties are hardly matched by visionary leadership. As a society we quibble over minutiae and increments, but the bigger tasks escape us. Our present leadership at varying levels, and to greater or lesser degrees, bears much of the responsibility for that failure.

There is something different about today’s leaders. As with any election season, they continue to offer us boutique initiatives that cater to our self-interest, believing that it’s the best way to attract our attention. Sadly, they are largely correct, but it still doesn’t change the reality that most citizens no longer look to politics for either inspiration or solutions.

Today’s leaders seek to take us to a place that’s manageable or incremental. That’s okay as far as it goes provided that things are progressing smoothly overall. But they’re not, not even close. We don’t know what to do about our lethargy, lower voter turnout, escalating poverty and joblessness, democratic and infrastructure deficits, environmental calamities, even international insecurity.

As our problems become more complex and intractable, it isn’t a good sign when our leaders pride themselves as managers. We require visionaries, risk takers, and truth tellers. Sometimes, especially in seasons of growing crises, we require people to move us to the impossible, not the probable. We need those who will guide us to places that don’t yet exist. We still search for a truly democratic state. We continue to require a space that strikes the adroit balance between prosperity and social accountability. We yearn for education that is increasingly affordable. We need to find that sweet spot balancing individual opportunity and collective responsibility.

We require leaders to take us to places we have never been because, other than the modern awareness of climate change, where they are taking us at the moment is where we have been before. For centuries we sought to escape the trap of poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, powerlessness, elitist privilege, and patriarchal myopia. Civilization is supposed to be about progressively moving beyond such things, not falling back into them.

This is what Vaclav Havel was referring to when, in speaking about leadership, especially in times of great national and global challenge, talked about “the art of the impossible.” Like Mandela, he accomplished what people said couldn’t be done by appealing to their intelligence and sense of social and political awareness. We need leaders who will take us down new paths and who, through their inspiration and belief in the citizenry, teach us how to adapt. We don’t need to be led to a slight alteration, but to our better selves.

In real terms, today’s leaders run the danger of being anti-leaders. By asking us to trust them, their policies, their political skills, they are ultimately requesting that we hand over the keys and trust them with the direction. We are now seeing where that is getting us. In a complex world, we can’t be led by an old world sense of hierarchy. We – citizens, voters, enlightened, empathetic, and lately too self-absorbed – want in on the action of power, not merely to observer it. We wish a hand in creating a world of new solutions. And for that we require a new kind of leadership.

This not a question of us reclaiming our birthright. We never had power in the first place; it always swirled in the area of hierarchical leaders. It’s a question of us now progressing to the point when power is shared, not just owned, monopolized, or exercised.  Are we ready for it as citizens?

Gone are the days when we can conveniently leave the pressing tasks of leadership to the boardroom or the backroom. Tomorrow’s generation of leaders must be able to inspire us towards a cooperative way ahead instead of merely managing our collective decline.  I believe those leaders will emerge and are readying themselves – women and men of courage and inclusiveness – but that we must first demand it, not only of them but ourselves.

In our present life everyone has an opinion. Some even have ideas. But it seems that no one has solutions. They must yet be discovered in those areas we once deemed as unreachable. We now stand between the inevitable and the impossible. Our next generation of leaders must shake off the former while leading us to the latter.

Next post: Leadership and “followship”

 

The Radicalization of Education

Screen Shot 2015-07-08 at 6.44.08 PM

IT WAS A WORD TOO FREQUENTLY co-opted for use in the War on Terror, yet for some reason it came to mind as I keenly watched the faces of over 300 students at Fanshawe College’s graduation.

Jane and I were deeply appreciative to be given an honourary diploma that day (the first shared diploma in the college’s history), and we talked about the message we would give to the graduates. Jane, as always, was awesome, yet when my turn came that word “radicalization” popped into my head again. “This isn’t the end of your formal education,” I said, “but the start of the radicalization of it.”

I used the word purposely because it means more than how some terrorist groups seek to recruit young members. Kenyan writer, Shadrack Agaki, has called for the radicalization of African youth into social innovation as the only way of keeping them from being pulled into something criminal and sinister. Blogger John Grant writes in Counterpunch of how he became radicalized by the extremes of America’s war on Iraq and called for key American political figures like Dick Cheney to be tried in regular court.

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines the term as, “To cause someone to become an advocate of radical political or social reform,” and gives as an example the opposition of younger Americans to the Vietnam War. At times the impulse can turn overtly violent and should be shunned, but on other occasions radicalization results when people become agitated enough to speak out against injustices or current practices that are deemed no longer acceptable.

The students seated before us that at Fanshawe College were rich in potential, coming from Autism and Behavioural Science, Early Childhood Leadership and Education, Human Services, Recreation, and Social Services. In other words, most were about to be pressed into service on the margins, in those places where so many citizens struggle to be recognized despite the many odds against them. Ironically, for many, they were about to enter fields that were in the process of getting worse, not better. Funding in many areas is getting cut, the numbers of those at risk get greater, and society’s understanding of the challenges is increasingly lost in an economic and political order that talks about human needs but refuses to adequately fund efforts to find effective collaborative solutions.

The students before us that day were about ready to enter a world of hurt – not theirs necessarily, but that of individuals and families in various and diverse kinds of conflict and scarcity. Those remarkable young women and men were heading into global service to provide essential care and understanding.

But that is no longer enough. It’s like watching poverty grow or climate change be ignored. To work in such fields is commendable, but the overall structures require fundamental reform. And so that day Jane and I asked them to use their voice, not just their hearts; to use their convictions and not merely their compassion; to fight for adequate public policy and not just public care; to fight for justice and not just charity. They must speak up before the silence becomes deafening.

Judging from their reaction during the graduation and after, many of those with diplomas were already radical in their outlook, believing in the need to fight for their clients or patients instead of merely serving them. Some, who through emotion thanked us for the speech, said they were now ready to change their world and we fully believed them.

As author and writer Derrick Bell plainly put it: “Education leads to enlightenment. Enlightenment opens the way to empathy. Empathy foreshadows reform.” Those students are now out in a world starving for reform, equity, and understanding, radicalized in their empathy for others and determined to bring them compassionate justice.  Fanshawe had served them well.

 

 

 

The Long Road From Charity to Justice

Unknown

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HAD EXACTLY one year left before an assassin’s bullet struck him down and traumatized a nation. He had spent recent months attempting to break through the “indifference barrier” by drawing a direct link between racism to poverty. It wasn’t enough, he would maintain, to seek equal rights for black Americans if they remained mired in poverty. And so on this particular night, April 4, 1967, at New York City’s Riverside Church, he laid it out as he had seen and experienced it:

“A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

And there it was. He was calling on the nation to give more to charity, but to also change its structure so that human justice and not mere charity became the ultimate motivator and goal. He assumed most knew the story of the Good Samaritan, of how a man is beaten and robbed, left by the road side, and of how a compassionate Samaritan helped him. He praised such actions, seeing them as a great aspect of the American character. Yet he reminded his generation that true compassion is attacking the forces and systems that leave others in need in the first place.

As King saw it, to those living on the margins of our communities, acts of charity and compassion should be our very first response to meet the need. But then there is the next stage. What caused it? Who is responsible? How can we change things at their source so that acts of charity are not as required as those were we help those who begin to find their footing?

Reflecting on King’s words years later, Nelson Mandela concurred: “Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice.” And as the south African leader knew, the prevailing system of his time would itself have to be changed if justice was to be achieved. He knew, as we all know deep within us, that if an economic and social system leaves huge fallout, then the very best of charitable generosity will never be enough. Will donating to a food bank alleviate hunger pangs? Absolutely. But it can never eradicate hunger itself. For that there must change at deeper levels.

Richard Nixon had a different point of view at that time, maintaining that the best method for eliminating poverty was to “enlist the greatest engine of progress ever developed – private enterprise.” In other words, Nixon was looking for millions of more Good Samaritans.

In a very real sense, the former president got his wish but not his desired outcome. The corporate structure that has taken over our public policy machinery has recruited a plentitude of corporate largesse for those at risk, offering funding, expertise, services, and leadership. But after almost half a century of this, where has it gotten us? Poverty, hunger, homelessness, mental health and addictions – all these have grown, not diminished under Nixon’s structure.  They have had their opportunity; it has not worked.

The time has seriously come to ask ourselves, individual and collectively, “Will we just let everybody worry about themselves and rely on charitable donations of time and money to get by? Is this what we would want for ourselves if we remained mired in poverty? If so, then it won’t be too long until the damage created by present structure will become so great that prosperity will never be gained other than by a few.

Or will we be different? Will we reform by our actions and votes the deep and unjust structural inequalities at our nation’s core that favour power and abandon the powerless? To that wonderful Canadian trait of generosity and charity can we add a passion and understanding for justice? There are no quick fixes in justice – it is a long road – but the results last decades and lift millions out of their despair. Charity by itself is surely limited, but when added to sincere efforts at systemic restructuring it can become a springboard for change. Without serious reform, charity just leads to an ever-increasing cycle of hopelessness. Charity gives, but justice changes. What will we fight for, the present or the future?

%d bloggers like this: