There is another approach to decision making that is much more accurate in describing how governments work; it is climate-crisis-decision. As issues arise, it becomes apparent that certain ones need attention. Gradually, a climate of opinion develops that action is required, but governments still don’t respond. After further neglect of the issue, a full-blown crisis develops and the need for urgent action is apparent to everyone. At that point, belatedly, governments act. We have watched this style of decision making play out time and again with the Ford Government in Ontario and its handling of the COVID crisis. Whether with the tragedies in our seniors’ homes, the overwhelmed hospitals, or the risks facing the imminent return of children to the classrooms, the provincial approach is to watch events unfold until the situation is critical and then to take action after the fact. Far from skating to where the puck will be, our governments are all too often studying their skates and how they might put them on.
This comment and approach is associated with hockey legend Wayne Gretzky. Rather than chasing along behind, reacting to what has been, it calls for anticipating and getting ahead of the action. As is painfully obvious, it is also the complete opposite of the approach used by our governments. Rather than being proactive, they are completely reactive, always following along behind the action. The latest disgraceful example involves residents of Afghanistan who had worked as interpreters or provided support to Canadian troops in other ways during the prolonged Afghan war. The federal government promised to bring them to safety in Canada three years ago. Once President Biden ordered the withdrawal of American troops from that country, the result was all too predictable. As the Taliban quickly moved to regain control, the Canadian Government again promised to take action, and to bring 20,000 refugees here. Now that Kabul has fallen, the Taliban takeover is almost complete and the prospects for rescuing further refugees are grim.
There is another approach to decision making that is much more accurate in describing how governments work; it is climate-crisis-decision. As issues arise, it becomes apparent that certain ones need attention. Gradually, a climate of opinion develops that action is required, but governments still don’t respond. After further neglect of the issue, a full-blown crisis develops and the need for urgent action is apparent to everyone. At that point, belatedly, governments act. We have watched this style of decision making play out time and again with the Ford Government in Ontario and its handling of the COVID crisis. Whether with the tragedies in our seniors’ homes, the overwhelmed hospitals, or the risks facing the imminent return of children to the classrooms, the provincial approach is to watch events unfold until the situation is critical and then to take action after the fact. Far from skating to where the puck will be, our governments are all too often studying their skates and how they might put them on.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorC. Richard Tindal, Ph.D is a retired Professor of Government. He taught for 30 years at St. Lawrence College, Kingston and was an occasional Visiting Professor at Queen's University. He has also written and consulted extensively about government. Archives
October 2023
Categories |