(LIoyd Walker is vice-president of Freedom Party.)
"The only thing constant in life is change."
While I agree with the maxim, it doesn't mean that everything or everyone initiates change, only that change inevitably occurs.
Obviously there are people and groups who will only change when there is no other alternative. At the other end of the spectrum there are those who embrace and promote change.
There can be no doubt that Freedom Party is a catalyst for change --- and that the Liberal, conservative and New Democratic parties are not. They may well advocate some adjustment to the status quo, but they cannot initiate the change required to cure what ails our province and the government itself. Mindset.
Being open to new ideas or ways of looking at things is admittedly difficult.
In his book, PO: Beyond Yes And No, Edward de Bono states that the most receptive people to new approaches include those in arts-related fields, mathematicians, computer scientists, young people in general, journalists, bankers and (surprising to me) business executives. Those least receptive to change include lawyers, academics, literary critics, philosophers and (not surprisingly), politicians. Interestingly enough there was a fairly even split in the teaching profession.
De Bono summed the situation up as follows: "The division seems to be between those who are actually involved in doing something and producing new ideas --- and those who are too busy defending already established ideas to see the need for new ones.
Taking it one step further, it shows that those who have a vested interest in the status quo are the least likely to do anything that will bring about meaningful change --- and very likely to resist change. In government, this means that the current political status quo (NDP, Liberal and PC) are unlikely to make any significant changes in the way our government operates, no matter what claim they make to the opposite.
Apart from political philosophy (or lack of it), a major obstacle to the expectation of meaningful change from the big three parties (and their newer clones) is attitude. They all share the same mindset regarding government, and that point of view ultimately handcuffs them when the time comes to look for alternatives to the current way government or any of its programs are run.
All political parties exist to run candidates in elections. Their goal is to sit in the Ontario Legislature. Mindset in action. If you asked anyone what the legislature was they would tell you "it's a place where governments make legislation," and they would be correct Even Webster's Dictionary defines a legislature as "an organised body having the authority to make laws..."
The mindset is there: the goal of a political party is sit in the legislature and the purpose of a legislature is to make laws.
Rarely will you see our elected officials sitting with the purpose of repealing legislation. When they do, it's usually because change has occurred without them and they have to bring the laws back to reality. Even the general public would be shocked if an elected government didn't pass any new legislation. Questions along the line of "what are we paying them for?" would be common in coffee shops across the province.
Again the mindset is there: we expect more legislation and as a consequence (no surprise here), we get it.
The fact that political parties want to form the "government" imposes another set of blinders on the majority of parties. Mindset again.
Almost every definition of government includes the idea of "authoritative direction or control." (Webster's Dictionary). This definition has developed over years and years and the idea that 'this is what you do if you are elected' is a powerful preconception that only a party of principle like Freedom Party can hope to counter and overcome.
Here's another well-known example of the mindset at work:
Every party has come out in favour of "less government." Whether it's the NDP and the social contract, Lyn McLeod's call for efficiency or Mike Harris' Common Sense Revolution, they all express their concern for the size of government.
But remember the mindset. They think they're there to legislate and govern. In all cases, "less government' means giving us the current amount of legislation plus more new legislation, but doing it with fewer people. "Less government" simply means doing everything they're doing now but just more "efficiently" or more "effectively." That all comes down to more government with less people.
In the Freedom Party context less government actually means less "government" (i.e., less authoritative direction, less control;) not more government with fewer people. Sadly for all of us, the mindset of the current major parties prevents them from thinking of less government in the same terms as Freedom Party.
Freedom Party Leader Jack Plant recently gave an excellent presentation on the education budget to the Board of Education in London. He was warmly received. (See Freedom Flyer, June 1994)
His presentation pointed out that there were changes coming in education and that the changes would come despite the Board's efforts to deny it. He offered to work with them to try and examine the alternatives so that London would be prepared for the future. He made suggestions that could only come from someone outside of the Board. But he suggested reviewing areas that would impact the nature of the Board itself and would take away some of the warm comfortable feeling that Board members have in their jobs.
Because Jack worded his suggestions carefully, the Board's reaction was fairly positive and he was asked for a copy of his list of areas to review. The list, containing almost 100 specific suggestions and/or areas to review, was sent, but no further contact has been requested. I'd bet my shirt that many of the facets of education budgets that Jack would review --- changer --- were simply unthinkable to those in the mindset of maintaining (or adapting) the status quo.
Bill Frampton (Fp Regional Vice-president, Eastern Ontario) wrote a fantastic article on the Single Transferrable Vote. The STV is a classic example of a major re-thinking of the electoral process that would result in the process being more responsive to the voter's preferences. One of the cited advantages of the STV is that "political parties wield much less power under the STV than under any other system." Could such a suggestion have come from any party that only had the goal of making the electoral process "more efficient" or handling elections with fewer people?
Bob Rae believes that he is promoting change, but the changes he promotes are greatly limited by his "social democrat" mindset. He can't possibly promote and do the very things that he implies are his goals. His mindset won't let him.
Mike Harris' Common Sense Revolution document gives ample evidence of the mindset present and highlights the need for a changing of the guard it we are really to change government in Ontario. He talks about "re-inventing" government, yet his direction indicates that while he wants to do some re-structuring, re-inventing is far from his mind.
Mike Harris wants to deliver the same amount of government using fewer resources (people) and says he'll accomplish this by making programs more efficient and cutting out any waste within them. Not very likely.
Don't got me wrong, there's nothing wrong with efficiency and cutting waste. But the problem is that this just isn't reinventing government and it's simply not going to accomplish enough to make government in Ontario healthy.
The biggest advantage that Freedom Party has is that we want to re-invent government. For us, this doesn't just mean making the current process more efficient. It means that we must question everything, right from the ground up. Questions that would never pass the lips of a Liberal or a Tory or a Dipper must be asked.
They are unable to ask these questions because of their mindset. It actually stops them from considering the very issues that must be reviewed. Their "we've-always-done- it-this-way" attitude is the very thing that prevents them from looking at the tough questions.
In this regard, Freedom Party has a wonderful advantage. We are the alternative. This requires that basic questions be asked. Our ability and eagerness to look for alternative answers to even the most basic questions is our greatest strength.
What is the purpose of government? Should there be limits on government? What are rights and who has them? What authority should the government have?
Our greatest asset is that we're the only ones asking why. Why do we have this piece of legislation or this board? Why are we involved in this issue or why is the government in this business? And the biggest why of all: why haven't all the alternatives been explored?
These are the questions that must be explored in order to actually change the current course of our governments, yet they got less than a passing glance from the status quo. For them the answers are understood, provided off artlessly by their own mindset
Change is inevitable. Because of our philosophy of individual freedom, rights, and responsibilities, Freedom Party will increasingly find itself on the leading edge of that change.
Our positions, defining a precise purpose for government, are based on the very questions that they are unable to ask. The answers to those questions open the way for us to challenge their mindset and promote needed change. We can actually challenge present policies and question their very existence. We can do what is necessary to lead Ontario into a positive and secure future.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
