The Public Service as Ideology

by Tariq Piracha

---

Having conversations over the past couple of months with other public servants, it struck me that I don’t think that I’ve ever sat back and thought about the public service as an ideology. But the more conversations I have about Blueprint 2020 or any past public service renewal initiative, the more I’m starting to believe that this is the case.

We tend to think about ideology as large ideas like democracy, communism, socialism, capitalism, religion. Any ideology, whatever it is, guides any population that identifies with it on how to act and how to make decisions. In some cases it will be large and mostly academic like the ideologies listed above. In other cases, it may be much more personal or agenda-driven. Their scope may also be somewhere in between.

I’m seeing hints of ideology in the conversations around the public service, both academic and at the operational level: Who public servants ought to be; what public servants ought to be doing; the direction in which the public service should be going. The most recent and trending examples would be open government, open data and digital engagement — these are all marinating in a particular ideology that guides not only the direction that the public service ought to go, but also conditions the way in which we conduct our business.

I'm not attributing any positive or negative values to open government, or any ideology for that matter. My point is this: the public service has an ideology.

There’s a grey area that exists between the public service and government. The public service is tasked with preserving the public good, giving advice, implementing policy and serving Canadians. But the public service, despite its supposed impartiality, does not exist in a vacuum.

When the public service was created, it had a narrow purpose: support the mandate of the government. Public Works was one such department that was created in 1841 to build roads, bridges, canals. It provided infrastructure support in a country that in its infancy required significant support and momentum-building.

But the public service has grown way beyond those imaginings, or mandate around the time of Confederation. It has certainly grown beyond the imaginings of any one politician. Yes, government determines mandate, but there are pressures that exist in Canada that no one person (or politician) can manage on their own. (Even in Sir John A Macdonald's time, and despite his best efforts, he couldn't manage everything.) In that sense, the public service is not just responsive to government, it has become responsive to, or feels a responsibility toward the public good; to Canadians.

But if that’s the case, the values under which the public service operates are multi-faceted. Add in the organizational principles or trends that influence to the public service like groupthink, New Public Management, bureaucratic politics, and we’re now looking at a very complex public service that is trying to walk a tightrope of competing and sometimes confusing values.

One way in which Blueprint 2020 differs from previous renewal initiatives is that it asks about a vision for the public service in 2020. It is unfortunate that the conversations around Blueprint 2020 are often not about a vision for 2020. From what I have seen, the conversations are revolving around functionality, technology, effectiveness, efficiency.

Nick has already made the same kind of argument (see: The Question Blueprint 2020 Should Have Asked But Didn’t) that the conversations are less about a vision for 2020 and more reflective of a desire to catch up and keep up. I’ve seen few, if any, conversations about vision, values and ideology that the catching up and keeping up are couched in.

While I don’t think everyone should stop what they’re doing, book a boardroom and explore their feelings, I do believe a conversation about the nature and values of the public service is important. (See: Collaboration is about shared values.)

It’s the proverbial cart before the horse—talking about what to change before talking about the values and vision that could or should guide those decisions. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that public service ideology is an elephant in the room—I don’t think people are avoiding it. I think most simply haven't thought about it.

And we may not all be on the same page.

On the Clerk of the Privy Council

by Nick Charney

---

I co-wrote this month's Canadian Government Executive Magazine cover story with the Institute on Governance's Maryantonett Flumian; the article explores the relationship between the Clerk of the Privy Council Wayne Wouters and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Here's an excerpt:

To describe Wayne Wouters’ journey, we have to begin by acknowledging that this journey is in part directed by another very significant leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. Without the mutual respect and understanding by these two Westerners of each other's roles and the institutions that each heads, there can be no sustained progress for either Canada or its public service.

A prime minister, on his best days, is the guardian and steward of the country's prosperity, humanity and resilience. He holds those values close to him as he leads a government on behalf of Canadians. The Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet is head, guardian and steward of a vital national institution that contributes to supporting the agenda of the government of the day. He ensures that the values of the public service, including stewardship, excellence and integrity, are honoured and oversees the non-partisan institution as it strives to protect Canada's national interest while maintaining its relevance. [Full article]

I think it's timely given all the chatter recently ...

"Ruth Hubbard: The real problem with the public service" http://t.co/xj0yIq7koG #cpsr #goc #cdnpoli
— Nicholas Charney (@nickcharney) June 18, 2014

Here's the @Canada2020 white paper on GC renewal that's been in the Citizen lately: http://t.co/Lr93N9nvze #cpsr
— Kent Aitken (@kentdaitken) June 11, 2014

"Privy Council Office defends top federal bureaucrat" #goc http://t.co/Pf63uyqWMC
— Nicholas Charney (@nickcharney) June 16, 2014

... have a read, and let me know what you think; also Happy National Public Service Week :)

Cheers

Impossible Conversations: Tragedy in the Commons

by Kent Aitken

---

A group of us started a Public Administration/Political Economy Book Club in March 2013, prompted by a tweet from George Wenzel.

The June discussion was fantastic. The last two months have added some sharp new voices to the group, and the most recent book, Tragedy in the Commons, by Samara founders Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan, made for great fodder. The book is a dive into the (recent) state of Canada's parliament, based on interviews with former Members of Parliament, a demographic that allows for candid reflections.

We invite members to provide their reviews and reflections for posting here. Alison was kind enough to join us via Hangout to discuss the book when we met, and asked for suggestions for future editions, as well.

Thank you to Alison, and to everyone who takes part.

Nick Charney

Sequence matters; this book is a perfect complement to Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes and Savoie’s Whatever Happened to the Music Teacher. Taken together, these books provide great insight into the evolution of the political-bureaucratic interface in Canada. That said, I was taken aback by the fact that many of the interviewees saw themselves as the citizen’s solution to interfacing with the bureaucracy when things break down, choosing to cast themselves as ombudsman dealing with symptoms rather than legislators fixing systems. Unsurprisingly the book casts the ‘bureaucracy’ as amorphous and a part of the problem. To the best of my recollection none of the MPs questioned ever spoke of to the issue of the ongoing relationship between elected officials and the public servants that serve them or working with the civil service to achieve a particular end. It’s almost as though the relationship didn’t even register. I find it fascinating because of the amount of attention the relationship gets from the other side of the equation; bureaucrats, former bureaucrats and public admin academics (especially those in Ottawa) love to weigh in on the relationship (See: On The Trust Gap). I think it would be fascinating to conduct similar exit interviews with former civil servants and see how their answers stack up. My gut tells me we’d see an incredible gap in concerns, a gap that might be contributing to the Tragedy of the Commons.

Erin Gee

Freshly off Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes, I tried to guess (without much luck) whether or not any of the interviewees were playing the political marketing card. Tragedy in the Commons shed an interesting light into the world of politics, and despite the subject matter, remained accessible (so whether you’re a political junkie or not, you should read it). What struck me the most was the candour with which the interviewees spoke. They were (seemingly) incredibly forthright in their responses and I’m curious to see how future MP exit interviews may turn out.

Kent Aitken Nick and Erin both mentioned the context of other books we've read. I'll second the value of reading these books together, and add the warning it may feel like a slight punch in the gut. Where to even start? Alison asked for suggestions for improvements, and while any book could be improved, suggestions for Tragedy would be minor quibbles. They've done an excellent job, and published an engaging read out of powerful and unique source material. It's a worthwhile addition to the interim reports from the same interviews. My one concern would be that, given the qualitative nature of the research, those that disagree could dismiss the narrative as being a product of the authors' perspectives. Fortunately, many direct quotes from former MPs will hold much weight on their own. TL;DR: I've probably thrown around the term "must read" in the past, but this absolutely is, for anyone interested in politics or public administration. For reflections: I was struck by the idea of MPs considering themselves "outsiders" to the heart of the process, and working for ways to make a difference. Many seemed torn between "playing the game" and delivering results for their ridings and the country. Since I wrote When Parameters Are The Problem I've been seriously debating where the balance is between fitting neatly within the system, and adhering to one's principles (at least, when the two are indeed in conflict). I just didn't realize that the conflict would apply to MPs, as well. I was also intrigued at the lack of agreement on what an MP's job is in the first place: trustees of their riding, or delegates? There to echo voices or make decisions on their behalf? Simultaneously, should they be acting as ombudsmen for the bureaucracy to citizens, as Nick notes? I finished this book over a month ago and it's still rolling around in my mind. When voters go shopping, pick this up.