The Democratic Process

from the Telegraph Journal

A failure of democracy
Published Wednesday January 20th, 2010 The Telegraph-Journal
Apparently, the Liberals have learned nothing from their long history of rolling out controversial policy announcements. From the polytechnical fiasco in Saint John and the early French immersion disaster, to the recent gambit to sell NB Power, the pattern has been the same.

Lamrock speaks at a news conference during his days as minister of education. Columnist Janice Harvey takes issue with Lamrock’s contention that the process of arriving at a better power deal shows the political system is working: ‘If this is how Liberals understand the democratic process, then it explains why they have kept the New Brunswick public in such turmoil over the past three-and-a-half years.’ A few insiders, influenced by a handful of people who have privileged access to the premier's office or certain cabinet ministers, decide to make a radical policy change. The contested policy is based on a narrow and short-sighted interpretation of the problem, usually reflecting the agenda of powerful interests. Without warning, the government springs it on the public as a bold, decisive transformative change that has to happen if our province is to survive. It is presented as a fait accompli - the problem is the problem, the solution is the solution. Public relations firms are hired to craft the government's "messaging," which is rolled out strategically and predictably.

Such an approach is divisive and antagonistic, forcing people to take sides. There is no provision for intelligent, respectful dialogue and the processes provided by the parliamentary system of government are completely ignored. The only option people have to oppose it is to organize a counterforce to pressure the government to back off.

In the midst of the most rancorous political climate in a decade, remarkably, the Liberals are doing it all over again. Having abandoned Plan A, the outright sale of NB Power which the premier described as the best possible deal for New Brunswickers, they have now presented us with Plan B. The original artificial deadline for signing has not changed, nor has the approach to consultation.

In an effort to make a silk purse of the sow's ear, Kelly Lamrock, who outed the dissent within the Liberal caucus, has declared the democratic process a success. The MOU was put out to the public; the public responded; MLAs listened and reported to the premier; the premier changed the deal. If this is how Liberals understand the democratic process, then it explains why they have kept the New Brunswick public in such turmoil over the past three-and-a-half years.

The only democratic aspect in play is the protection of people's right to protest. After that, it looks a lot like what happens in authoritarian regimes where there are no legitimate participatory processes. Public consultation amounted to inviting people to post comments on a website set up by the spin doctors.

While others with privileged access got their message across by speaking quietly behind closed doors, ordinary citizens realized they would only be heard if they were very, very loud. So they resorted to demonstrations, public forums, Facebook petitions, letters and calls to MLAs threatening to withhold one's vote - the list of tactics goes on.

I am the first to defend all of these tactics as the public's only resort to influence the government, but the toll is very high. Democracy, ultimately, is the loser as people become discouraged and cynical, especially about politics and government. That people are forced into this kind of confrontational gauntlet politics is inexcusable.

The legislature, the cornerstone of our parliamentary system, is the proper vehicle for debate on public policy. In the NB Power case, the government should have struck an energy committee of the legislature to travel the province holding public hearings. There would be no special access - prince and pauper would be heard equally. Interventions of each would be part of the legislative record, not received in private or lost in the bowels of some PR website. The committee would write a report, also on the record, with recommendations to the government on how to proceed. The government, ultimately, would be accountable for how it responded to the report.

No, Mr. Lamrock, the system did not work. Having to browbeat MLAs until they realize their political goose is cooked unless changes are made is the stuff of schoolyard brawls. If that's what it takes to get this government's attention, the public will play that game - and quite effectively. But we don't like it and we resent being forced into that position. The whole business is tawdry and insulting.

The system will work when we have democratic and participatory processes for decision-making that are open and respectful, allow everyone to be heard, and are fully transparent and accountable.

In such a system, people would have a lot more respect for politicians and engagement with the process of government, and Hill and Knowlton would be out of business.

Janice Harvey is a freelance columnist, university lecturer, and president of the New Brunswick Green Party. She can be reached by email at waweig@xplornet.ca