Whistleblowers deserve our thanks
Politicians of all stripes love whistleblowers — until they are in power. Then the offending civil servant, public employee or angry citizen becomes a “disloyal, illegal leaker!”
Of all the many hypocritical hobby horses in political life, there are few that can match this dichotomy. The Ford government was badly bruised this month when their somewhat hairraising ideas of “health care reform” were sent to the NDP. The cabinet documents were not entirely congruent with the government’s publicly declared objectives, to put it delicately.
Despite being exploiters of many a brown envelope in Opposition, the government’s reaction was surprisingly predictable, if unimaginative. The two favourite crisis comms defences for responding to a leak are: “Early thinking only, not finalized, wait for the real policy announcement.” Then you at- tack the whistleblower. Calling in the cops was a more unusual additional cudgel, most often employed by another leaky administration to the south.
This hypocrisy does have its roots in a real conundrum, however. It’s not good for cabinet solidarity if its confidence is broken by a minister or their staff. It’s hard for governments to consult in confidence with non-governmental groups, if they have no confidence that private discussions will remain so. The trust that colleagues hold for each other, and that citizens hold for an administration, are the best antidotes to a leaky ship of state, as the Trudeau administration is learning painfully.
To try to find a path that encourages whistleblowers to reveal genuine wrongdoing or disingenuous governments’ real policy plans — but not gossipy office leakers trying to damage a competitor or colleague — is not easy. Since the notion of empowering whistleblowers gained popularity a couple of decades ago, far too many legitimate alarm-raisers have seen careers and lives destroyed, to believe we have found the right balance.
Calling in the police or criminal investigators never works. It’s simply too hard to find actionable proof. If someone is so worried about a hidden plan of government, they may be willing to put their career on the line, but they will take steps to protect themselves, too. It’s facile to argue that transparent governments will never get whistle-blown. But the opposite is certain: Secretive and/or untruthful governments always will.
The recent arms race between government officials, and more often political staff, and whistleblowers has become quite bizarre. The Wynne government not only got caught trying to erase its own history, it allegedly adopted a practice of writing down nothing. Not only does this ensure a flat learning curve for every future government, stripped of any history or guidance from previous mistakes, it is certain to lead to broken telephone: “Oh, I thought you said, ‘Break up that guy’s gang,’ not ‘Make up with that guy’s gang.’ ”
There is no point in attempting to make your government leak proof with the threat of heavy boots — it will have the opposite impact, by enraging your staff and public servants. Far better to apply the tried and true, “front page test”: “What would my partner/parents/children think if they saw this on …” when drafting.
This is not a new challenge, and Westminster minute takers and drafters have, for centuries, perfected the ability to convey what is required to record a discussion discreetly — but not dishonestly — and to make recommendations that have a protective “back door’” or alternatives offered.
But if you send a text to a colleague that says, “Here’s how we can really screw that jerk …” Or circulate a cabinet policy draft that is stamped “Confidential/No Distribution” whose lead sentence reads: “In amending our election commitments, in view of the fiscal mess bequeathed to us, here are some efficiency approaches to wasteful expenditure in the health care/education/child care portfolios …”
Well, you should be prepared for an “above the fold, banner headline” media wave when it is leaked, as it likely will be, and probably should be. Planning how to trash your opponents is part of political life, bragging about it in writing is not. Making serious changes to what helped elect you requires detailed public defence, sometimes even apology — not trying to hide behind misleading oleaginous bureaucracy-speak.