Sense of Entitlement

Most people in this province and elsewhere must be wondering just what the heck is going on in Queen's Park. The corruption (yes, corruption) problems at eHealth were not isolated to that one government agency. We now see what may be a very similar situation at the OLG (Ontario Lottery and Gaming). Now the questions everyone is asking are, is this endemic to all provincial agencies, and if so, if it is due to either negligence or malfeasance of the current government? There is much noise from the usual partisan bickering, although I suspect that most people simply want answers, and an end to this theft of their money.

Democratically-elected governments are, unfortunately, not immune to this type of corruption. The job of organizing a political party and then gaining and holding power requires many hands. Much of the work is done without remuneration by either partisans or those explicitly looking to create future obligations by contributing their time and skills, or monetary donations. A party that comes to power inevitably finds itself with a long list of favours that it must return or they will lose that necessary support.

That is one powerful reason why so many government appointments are used to repay those favours: it is one of the few means a government has to do so. To the annoyance of citizens it means we see important positions awarded not on the basis of merit, but as a means to reduce the governing party's list of obligations. For the appointees, even those who are qualified for their positions, they too often take those positions with a sense of entitlement: this is payback for years of unpaid and unrewarded effort. The prestige and remuneration of the position may not satisfy them since those may be little different from their situation before the appointment. No, they are looking for a little something extra. Even those appointees with high moral standards find that the laxity of spending procedures in those arm's-length agencies can be sorely tempting.

How to solve this problem? Well, it isn't easy. On the one hand we have those lists of party obligations that need to be paid, and on the other hand there are good reasons to keep agencies like the OLG and OPG at some distance from the politicos. The Ontario government's reactionary decision to subject those agencies to additional approval and oversight, to the level of scrutiny that applies to government ministries, is a poor one in my opinion.

As occurred in the fallout from the sponsorship scandal of the Chretien government, and in other similar instances, additional processes and approvals are imposed throughout the public service. This increases the cost of government (which we pay for) and penalizes the majority of the work force that are diligent and honest about their expenses and procurements. Not surprisingly it is also demoralizing in that it treats well-intentioned adults like wayward children or common criminals. Yet some degree of scrutiny is required for the public service since it is not subject to the self-correcting practices of private businesses that are ultimately ruled by the balance sheet.

What we need, as citizens, are governments that award these important positions to individuals with the skills and character appropriate to the responsibilities they take on. Do this and there will be far less need for the heavy burden of process and oversight. Somehow we need to take patronage out of the equation so that the unqualified are excluded, along with their sense of entitlement to the public purse as compensation for their political activities.

Wouldn't it be nice if people were satisfied to work for political parties purely out of a sense of public service and a desire to see their party's policies implemented when the party wins power? In this Utopian vision there would be no long list of obligations, and the government could proceed to fill appointments on merit and a commitment to implement the government's policies. I suppose I can dream.