Wednesday, May 30, 2012

When Policy meets Human Misery


Policy, a human creation, is meant to ‘police’ the day to day transactions that we all make with each other and with the institutions we all interact with.  Policy is not a tangible thing that would ever be recorded as an asset, with the exception that you can touch the paper that is mean to communicate a policy to the end reader.  

 We are all conditioned to accept the authority of policy, over the personal whims of others that might restrict our ability to transact with others so that we could fulfill our needs.  We naively believe that policy must have been properly developed, consequences understood, properly consulted and tested against the values that underline its existence in the first place.  Policy is a form of governance, or to another mindset a form of control.  Policy impacts us all in ways that we cannot imagine like an invisible force.

Good policy requires engagement, understanding, ongoing dialogue, ongoing adaptable learning, transparency, and clear purpose.  With most intangible things however most don’t get it, or fully appreciate the individual benefits or curse that it bestows on us all.

Bad policies can kill, most of the time indirectly and without intent.  The policy regime around H1N1 is a great example.

Policy cannot replace good judgment, although at times it is an excuse of stop thinking even in the face of consequences that the policy was never met to induce.  Policy can often be many times removed from the transactions between persons, but nonetheless still influence that transaction in ways that are hardly perceptible.

The public can find misplaced comfort to know if there is a policy to prevent a tragedy, but policy without good sound judgment is depressingly empty.

As I think of the young Wourms family from Airdrie, all now gone in an apparent murder-suicide, even in the face of the father’s psychiatric evaluation the month before,  one has to ask the question could anything have anything been done to prevent this senseless tragedy?  Where policies followed?  Were policies even capable of being followed? Were policies enough?  How did good sound judgment play a role or not in the decision making along the way?  What about other policies twice removed from this situation?  The policies around expectations to work in the face of mental illness?  The policies around the design of our communities where some cannot renew their spirit?  How about the policies around what services communities get allocated? How about the policies around privacy and individual rights where people’s needs are met only in an individual level, but not as members that interact in a family or community?

Policies are interconnected in ways that most don’t fully understand, but the consequences are experienced by real people. People may be responsible for their individual actions, but how those actions came to be, can and are influenced by the many invisible policies that we cannot always perceive.

Having a policy won’t save us, but having a good policy with due regard to it’s inter-connectivity, balanced by sound professional judgment, backed by a caring community is far better than misery.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

A reply to Alvin Finkel of Alberta Democratic Renewal Project & ChangeAlberta.ca


About time that someone asked the “Now What” question as I suspect it’s on many people’s minds.  I too also found the differences between the traditional center-left parties minimal in overall substance.  The so called political spectrum limits the conversation as all parties have a blend of what could be considered left or right of center at any given moment causing the a degree of confusion around the choices the electorate makes around what party aligns most with their values.

What Alvin missed was that although there was little policy difference between the center-left parties there were lots of personal differences between the parties that are much wider. Until these personal differences gets resolved for the “greater good” the center-left agenda will suffer the same as the center-right that are said to be in a family feud.
Now look what we have, a conservative government with an even more conservative opposition, talk about a narrow conversation!

There was an argument made to me once that the creation of new parties was good for democracy because it offered more choice.  Thinking of the big picture I replied that the proliferation of choice was effectively no choice, if all it does is risk splitting the vote.

In marketing if you offer too much choice, people will choose--not to choose, or stick with what they know best.  Just walk into your favorite restaurant after they change the menu and add more choices, you will know what I mean.

What’s strange about the last Provincial election in large part was that it was about fear, not an overarching inspiring vision of what Alberta is, and can be.  This speaks to the fact that the electorate is likely more pragmatic that political parties don’t give proper credit for.  I am convinced however that Albertans want to rally behind a common vision that gives personal and corporate purpose and promotes the desire to stay in Alberta, not just make your money and run.

To get moving on this conversation may require breaking things down to much deeper level.  To assist consider watching Harvard University professor Michael Sandel and his talk “Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?” he has some interesting things to say about the debate regarding the role of government.

To Alvin and the Alberta Democratic Renewal Project thank you for your hard work.