What a great line!
In the United States, figures move back and forth between academia, government and private business, with none of the firewalls that Canadian governments throw up to protect the bureaucracy from new ideas
It reflects the usual circulation of elites, resulting in the absence of citizen in the discourse. A state of power affairs we are stuck with for a while, and the best we can hope for is that the right elites are at the table!
Most strikingly, is the truth uttered in the latter part of the sentence - the firewall separating the Canadian bureaucracy from new ideas! What do we need to do to create a rapprochement between citizen and government?
via: Globe and Mail
Not sure what your take is on that sentence - the first part.
I think that sentence may just be an example of rhetoric. I’m not certain to which “firewalls” he is referring, but if he is talking about the policies preventing government employees from going to work directly in the businesses that they were involved with as bureaucrats, than I would be supportive of them in principle.
What was your take on it?
Comment by michael — April 27, 2009 @ 11:30 am
I am thinking of the very difficult to maneuver process for citizens to be heard Federally. For instance, in the post related to Mining Watch Canada it took environmental advocates 16 years to make mine pollutant data public and within that a 3 year legal case that must have cost a fortune. I also mean the process of separating government and citizens. I am also thinking of the 25+ years with still no results for childcare. Our process seems to make it easy for dedicated lobbyist or members from corporations or members of the Canadian elite to be heard via rather exclusive social networks, but not regular citizens. It is this procedural firewall that I am discussing, and a lack of a clear mechanism for citizens to be heard, which also acts as a firewall for ideas.
Comment by Administrator — April 27, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
hmm. I still wonder what procedural firewall he is talking about. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were actually dissing the rules against “back-and-forth” working in private and public realms. From what I understand, that firewall is good for the citizen, not bad for them. It provides more space for a larger non-interested citizen voice.
Basically, I am wondering if you would actually be for the procedural firewalls’ that he is talking about, instead of against them. When it’s vague and emotionally tinged rhetoric like that article, it’s hard to know.
Or maybe he’s talking about the lobbyist rules that came into effect a while ago (where politicians have to log any meeting with lobbyists inc. members of civil society). I’m not sure that I’m against those either.
Comment by michael — April 27, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
I see what you are saying, i do not support bringing down all the barriers and nor do i support always the same crew continuing to have easy access to government - both the bureaucracy and elected officials. Nor am i an advocate of change for change sake, of new for new sake, but i most certainly find the process of dialogue between citizen and state to be far apart, and i think the analogy of a firewall to new ideas is a good one!
Comment by Administrator — April 29, 2009 @ 9:51 am
:)
Glad you could understand me. Sometimes it’s a challenge. And of course I support the sentiment of your post. Just trying to brush up on my discourse analysis in my spare time
Comment by michael — May 1, 2009 @ 11:24 am