Bringing Politics into the 21st Century: Applying Modern Business Concept “System Approach” To Politics and Government

By Raymond Maung

The practice of politics and government in Canada was inherited from its previous colonial rulers in the United Kingdom, and the basic tenets have not been reviewed or modified since Canada became a country in 1867. On the other hand, business practices have continued to evolve and adapt in an ever-changing competitive environment over the years. Businesses that adapt will prosper and those that do not will cease to exist. The main purpose of politics and government in a western democracy is to serve and lead the electorate and, if possible, reflect the view of the majority while at the same time protecting the rights of the minority.

Recent world events, highlighted by what is happening in the United States highlight shortcomings in existing systems; in particular, extreme political polarization. The authors, a pathologist and a lawyer, reviewed the various processes and functions of elections and government operations, applying business principles, though the lens of a “system approach” with the purpose of developing a “Democratic, Responsible and Accountable Government – DRAG”.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Austin Macauley Publishers
• Release date: Apr 28, 2023
• ISBN: 9781398447042

Raymond Maung

Dr Raymond Maung (MD, FRCPC, MBA) is a pathologist who has published and consulted widely in pathology workload and human resources in Canada. His experience in Myanmar, where he was born, and Canada, and his MBA have given him an insight that is not readily apparent to native Canadians. The Pragmatic Democrat: a proposal on fixing the electoral system was published in “Kamloops This Week” where his initial thoughts on this subject were discussed. Richard Fyfe KC (BCom, LLB, MBA) has a legal background and has a keen interest in social aspects of law, particularly in relation to access to justice and legal ethics. His experience ranges from major infrastructure projects to civil disobedience matters.

Book preview

About the Author

Dr Raymond Maung (MD, FRCPC, MBA) is a pathologist who has published and consulted widely in pathology workload and human resources in Canada. His experience in Myanmar, where he was born, and Canada, and his MBA have given him an insight that is not readily apparent to native Canadians. The Pragmatic Democrat: a proposal on fixing the electoral system was published in Kamloops This Week where his initial thoughts on this subject were discussed.

Richard Fyfe KC (BCom, LLB, MBA) has a legal background and has a keen interest in social aspects of law, particularly in relation to access to justice and legal ethics. His experience ranges from major infrastructure projects to civil disobedience matters.

Dedication

Both authors have benefitted greatly from the insights over the years provided by Professor Elango Elangovan at the University of Victoria, Gustavson School of Business.

Copyright Information ©

Raymond Maung and Richard Fyfe 2023

The right of Raymond Maung and Richard Fyfe to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by the authors in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

Any person who commits any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

A CIP catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

ISBN 9781398447035 (Paperback)

ISBN 9781398447042 (ePub e-book)

www.austinmacauley.com

First Published 2023

Austin Macauley Publishers Ltd®

1 Canada Square

Canary Wharf

London

E14 5AA

Acknowledgement

The authors are also grateful to their families for their tolerance and support in the many hours spent co-developing this material.

Introduction

Of the two key hallmarks of a western civilization—democracy and capitalism—both have seen better times. Numerous writers have observed how unconstrained capitalism leads to increasingly extreme polarisation (both politically and economically)¹ ² ³.

Democracy is under increasing threat as well, as evidenced by the rise in populist governments and the extreme polarisation presently evident in the United States and many countries, Russia, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Greece, Philippines, to name a few.

Canada is not immune to these developments, although they have not been as extreme to date as in other western civilised countries. There are, nonetheless, examples of the problems that are present and ready to manifest themselves upon any lapse in vigilance.

As with many countries and governments, Canada has experienced issues with corruption, real or perceived political favours, disproportionate influence by the rich and powerful, and has attempted to address these issues with measures like public inquiries and royal commissions. The problems with these processes are that they operate at huge cost but end up with reports that sit on the shelves, rather than producing meaningful and significant changes. Even perceived favours or corruption are threats. Though not based on fact, they are dangerous as they erode confidence in our political system and government and become part of a vicious cycle.

These problems have affected our governments since at least Confederation (Appendix A). Our first Prime Minister, Sir John A MacDonald was involved with the Pacific Scandal. This involved bribes being accepted by 150 members of the Conservative government as private interests attempted to influence the award of a national rail contract. Recent examples include the Charbonneau Commission in Quebec that identified significant corruption within local and provincial governments in their interactions with the private sector.

The recent controversy regarding SNC-Lavalin also highlights the fact that large corporations are frequently motivated to seek to influence governments to their best advantage and that the tools available to government to conduct a follow up investigation are in essence ineffective when the findings can be ignored by the Prime Minister and the report is not made public (see SNC-Lavalin affair)⁴.

Other more dated examples include the ill-fated public inquiry into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society in British Columbia, the Sponsorship Scandal where major misuse and misdirection of funds were disbursed through the Liberal Government’s 1990’s sponsorship program, Alison Redford’s expense scandal resulting in the forced resignation of the premier, and the Ontario Power plant scandal where the government cancelled the contract at a great expense.

The recent report on Canadians’ Views on Democracy⁵ (Appendix B) showed that although a strong majority of Canadians prefer democracy as a system of government, a significant proportion believe:

That the country is not governed democratically (43%); that voting does not give them a say how government is run (44%); that they cannot influence the government (56%); that elected officials don’t care what ordinary Canadians think (68%); and that government ignores their interests in favour of the establishment (61%).

This is reflected also in that 80% indicate that they would likely vote for a candidate who stood up for the common people against the elite. The majority of respondents indicated a preference for the use of experts for making policy (70%).

The report suggests that we need to reform the current system so that Canadians feel that their vote counts and that they have influence on the government. Canadians want fact-based decision-making. This is essential for a functioning democratically-elected government—something that we will refer to in this paper as Democratic, Responsible and Accountable Government (DRAG).

This lack of trust in government is reinforced by the findings in the Edelman Trust Barometer 2020⁶. Of societal leaders, only 42% trust the Canadian government. This low level of trust is the same as for Chief Executive Officers (CEO).

In our view, this is not a good standard since a CEO’s main concern is the company’s shareholders and not the public (see—Societal Leaders not trusted to address challenges).

Similarly, the Edelman Trust Barometer indicates that the Canadian government is seen by a majority of those responding to the survey as incompetent and unethical. The level of indicated distrust of government is actually worse than for business, which is viewed as competent and unethical, but less unethical than the government (see—No institution seen as both competent and ethical).

Ethics is seen as the dominant force in determining trust (see—When it comes to Trust, Ethics is in the driver’s seat). These results suggest that we need a DRAG, with changes that will promote trust and competence.

This study also shows the highest degree of trust in scientists which suggests that Canadians will be more likely to support decisions based on science and facts.

As Einstein said, Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We have seen these problems recur over the centuries, and yet we repeat the same processes without any change to the system. We appear not to learn from history.

Since Canadian confederation in 1867, the political system and processes inherited from the United Kingdom has been accepted and used, but without any critical review or modernisation.

During the same period, businesses have adapted to modern concepts and evolved to remain successful. Businesses that have failed to adapt, learn and modernise become obsolete and become footnotes of history.

Unlike a business, politics and government do not become obsolete, but just continue to exist. The negative impact on society of this failure or slowness to adapt is why we believe that it will be prudent to view politics and government in light of new business concepts and practices to make them both more effective and efficient in serving the public, bringing Canadian government into the 21st century.

While each incident of government failure (whether corruption or general failure) is addressed, sometimes by way of a public inquiry or royal commission, other times through legislative amendments, we suggest that there is much value in considering whether established management tools might have a place in a reconsideration of our democratic systems. And if so, what those management tools could contribute.

There are a variety of approaches available to governments and sometimes to organisations to analyse and address the problems that can impede optimal performance. Examples include public inquiry or royal commission (in the case of government dealing with a major public issue, particularly when fact finding is necessary); lean methodology (where the need is for process improvement and efficiency); and 6 sigma (which aims to ensure that production meets the highest quality standards).

Each of these methods has its place, and experience has demonstrated the unquestionable effectiveness of each when used in the appropriate circumstances.

Of these several methods, the approach that can best be used to improve the political process of choosing a democratic, responsible and accountable government is the system approach, or system method. The system method can be used in both a government and non-government organisational context.

In a system method, the first step is to seek absolute clarity as to the outcome to be pursued. In other words, it is necessary to begin by defining or describing the desired end state. Once the desired outcome is clear, the input, the process and the output are analysed, and at the same time a monitoring process is instituted to guide further adjustment to the variables as needed. Interim or subordinate goals can be identified and priorities set. In addition, a method for identifying or measuring success is developed.

As noted above, in a system method, a clearly defined outcome must be identified. Government or the organisation then follows a strategic and systematic approach to achieve the outcome. All the actors involved work towards the common outcome.

Other methods such as lean⁷ may be used for individual processes but the steps in the system method provide a way to understand and move to address an outcome-focused need because the method enables identification and prioritisation of the most important elements.

In this method, there are built-in processes to monitor both progress and the output/results. Any deviations, errors, problems and potential opportunities will be detected to make the organisation more effective and efficient. Most, if not all, organisations are an open system, i.e., they are influenced by their environment.

In choosing a government, we suggest that the desired outcome is to have a democratically elected responsible and accountable government (DRAG).

Canada’s democratic government system was largely inherited from the United Kingdom and has evolved through the centuries to the current system⁸. Many of our existing government processes are based on tradition and are overdue for a thoughtful overhaul.

Democracy is sometimes referred to as rule of the majority (Wikipedia). The government should have the vote of the majority of the electorate.

Accountability and responsibility are two essential related elements that are not discussed enough. These are essential