By the
People: unlocking the potential of a united Canadian society to address global
problems
I have
just begun a very exciting endeavor. I have just launched the search phase of a
new venture with Engineers Without Borders Canada. Some of you will have known me through my work on the aid
reform advocacy team over the past two and a half years. I greatly enjoyed that
work and the work I have done with many of you and it is out of the
participation in advocacy that I learned the lessons and gained the
understanding that has allowed me to generate some of the ideas that created
the premise of this venture. So here goes...
As a
people and planet we are facing increasingly complex problems. The institutions
we have built and our way of doing things is creaking under the load of these
problems. They are not set up to handle problems of this complexity - problems
that cross national boundaries, that include incredibly diverse groups of
people, and that require the action of a very diverse set of individuals and
institutions.
There is
potential in a more collaborative approach where different actors play roles
specific to their capabilities. There is also potential in bringing the
expertise of groups and individuals together to build our understanding of the
problem and generate possible solutions.
The
mission of this venture is to change the method by which Canada, and in
particular the federal government, determines its direction and action
internationally. This means changing and improving how foreign policy is
developed in Canada. Because of the complexity of the problems we are facing,
the direction and action needs to be determined and taken by many different
actors, not just by a narrow group of people.
The key
is ensuring we are bringing the right people together at the right part of the
foreign policy process so that we can maximize the outcome produced - or the
contribution made.
This
means determining what potential there is at each stage - problem
identification; priority setting; legitimation; the design of policy
instruments; implementation and evaluation - for ultimately more effective
outcomes towards the resolution of global problems.
The core
hypothesis is that by bringing more of the best people together from different
parts of society in how we approach our actions, we can contribute more as a
nation.
The
challenge is then, either figuring out who are the best people; and how and
when, and for what purpose we are bringing them together OR figuring out what
is stopping us from bringing those people together to collaborate and share,
and tackling that issue so that we can unlock that potential.
That is
something I want us to figure out. Here are my current plans on how to best
"search" to understand the potential in this area.
Current
Priorities
•
Understanding,
at a very granular level, how foreign policy is developed and implemented by
Canada.
•
Finding
examples of public engagement/participation or collaborative approaches that
have happened at different phases of the foreign policy process in Canada,
Europe (there are a number of countries in Europe that I’ll be looking into), and the US. Mapping out who the other
groups or people are acting in this space, who is trying to create similar
change or who has a similar vision. The purpose of this being that we can
define a strategic change to create that will hopefully unlock the potential of
this system.
•
Building
relationships with public policy, public participation, open government, and
foreign policy process experts in Canada, the US, and Europe.
•
Learning
though activities
•
Partnering
with Samara Canada and the Guelph, McMaster, SFU, UofA, and MUN, and Usask EWB
chapters to run discussion groups called Democracy Talks.
•
Participating
in the Inter-Council Network Public Engagement Knowledge Hub
•
Working
with chapters to do foreign policy town halls with their MP; community
dialogues; and panels or other learning activities.
•
Reading
a ton on open government, the public policy process, public engagement, etc.
If you
prefer specific ideas instead of the conceptual language I am using above, here
are some examples of what this might look like. I am still in the
"searching" phase of a venture so don't hold me to any of these
specifics!
•
Diaspora
groups bringing their understanding of their country of birth to the policy
process so that we have a well rounded understanding of the local situation
somewhere as we are building our direction or approach within that nation.
•
What
if we had a "third house of parliament" made up of half Canadians and
half citizens of other countries where foreign policy is debated (someone told
me today that this is being done in Denmark, I need to fact check it, but
either way it is a super cool idea).
•
Canadians
who have lived abroad are brought into a discussion group with DFAIT officials
to add their expertise to DFAIT's programs.
•
Government
and civil society work together to define the problem and generate solutions
rather than government issuing what it believes civil society needs to do.
Background
reading
A part of
my learning process has been to do a ton of reading (I've had massive help on
this from Jessica Barry from the MUN EWB / Oxfam chapter). Here are my
favorites:
•
Mapping
the Links - a paper from the now dismantled Canadian Policy Research Network
•
The
products of and process of engaging Canadians in foreign policy by the then
Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham.
•
A
North-South Institute paper on engagement in trade policy development.
•
Mosaic
Institute paper on Diaspora Engagement in Foreign Policy
Instead
of me attaching all of these, please do a quick google search and you'll find
these.
I'm super
excited to be tackling this issue. I am also pumped for the immense potential
of Canada to contribute more to the resolution of the problems that we are
aiming to tackle. I believe that we need to bring more people with value to add
and a role to play into how we address these problems. I hope this venture can
help discover and unlock this potential.
This is awesome. Congrats on this launch post.
ReplyDeleteI have a question.
Background: Here is my rough understanding of how policy works: (1) politicians determine broad goals of foreign policy, (2) bureaucrats and their networks shape sub-objectives and lay the strategies and plans for getting there.
My question is whether you have a sense yet of whether this venture will seek to involve more Canadians in both (1) and (2), or will prioritize one or the other?
Another way to ask: Do we need more Canadian voices adding weight to different sides of the argument when politicians are setting goals? Or do we need more Canadian voices contributing expertise so that we can ensure the best strategies and plans possible for achieving goals? Or both? And which (if any) would the venture prioritize?
I think there is a lot of potential energy in Canada for this sort of engagement, and if you can figure out how to fully unleash it, you will put a dent in the universe.
Hey Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the comment!
My current sense is that there is more potential to have Canadians and Canadian civil society more involved before priorities are set and while bureaucrats are developing sub-objectives. There is a stage before priorities are set, which in some political science books is called "initiation" and in others it is called "problem identification." This is a really messy space as many actors try and get their voice heard.
I think there is potential for citizens to be more involved with civil society in a much deeper way during this stage of policy development. Civil society organizations (CSOs) are engaging and working with a lot of Canadians now but it is often argued that CSOs often have their own agenda that is not simply a bubbling upwards of citizens perspective. SO...at this stage CSOs likely need to get better at deeply engaging citizens and secondly, there need to be more ways for "non-organized" citizens to be engaged in this "problem identification" stage.
I also think there is a massive amount of potential in Canadians engaging in the sub-objective stage by working with the bureaucracy. This might be where, for example, diaspora groups are bringing their understanding of a country into the policy development process and bureaucrats are using this new knowledge in policy decisions.
I am partially avoiding your question on whether more Canadians should be involved at the priority setting stage with politicians because I am not sure. I still think there is a really strong role for elected officials to play in setting a bunch of the agenda since they are representative of Canadians and need to play this role.
Great questions!
Ian