N.L.’S technocratic-style government out of touch with needs of residents
Opposition parties are slamming the Furey government over lack of transparency.
NDP MHA for Labrador West Jordan Brown insinuates nepotism is alive and well in the Furey administration.
Throughout the provincial Liberal leadership race, Furey faced accusations from his opponent John Abbott and others that he was excessively vague on policy. Perhaps there’s some truth to this accusation, he generally talks widely and generally.
Opposition parties are crying foul over decisions being made behind closed doors; I don’t know why they would expect anything else from this Furey administration a technocratic-style government.
‘Technocracy’ can be defined as the government of society by scientists, economists, businesspeople and/ or bureaucrats — placing between the public and the government a third party — a group of whose responsibility it is to investigate, evaluate and propose objective solutions to various social problems. Put simply, technocracy is a top-down approach to governance, where politicians promise to study the problems that their constituents face and outsource finding solutions to a small select group of highly-educated experts.
Technocracy’s objective is to gather information and optimize the information gathered. The problem is studied, better understood, and then resolved using the most efficient, cost-effective solution available.
Technocratic framework of decision-making is at the centre of Premier Andrew Furey’s politics. Furey has stated, “I’m not afraid to seek advice.”
The consequence of this technocratic politics is that Furey is disconnected from the people he aspires to lead. His politics see the voting public as something to be manipulated.
The government, then, is seen as the authority that knows better than you what your problems are, and reaches down to take you out of the lifestyle you live. Furey’s major strength lies not in his connection with voters, but in his access to outside networks of patronage and power. It follows that Furey has pitched himself not to the public, but rather to his fellow Liberals, who likely to see his exclusive connections as a vital shot in the arm for a party that needs every ounce of bargaining power it can muster.
Technocratic politics mean that the candidate does not actually need to engage with the public. The government defers the issues of everyday political life — issues like poverty, systemic racism, unemployment, et cetera — to a group of professionals that will produce studies and means-tested solutions from a pre-established set of “parameters” and “metrics.”
This insulates the government from social issues, relieving politicians of the responsibility to be directly accountable to policy preferences of voters. The result is that social issues come to appear less real, less urgent, less profound. And since these issues are being worked upon by only the best and the brightest, whatever solution they deliver will inevitably be branded with the unquestionable authority of nonpartisan expertise. For a technocrat, every problem, no matter how pervasive and structural, is thus made minor, or at the very least manageable.
Regardless of whether or not the problem actually gets resolved, the mere creation of “solutions” proves that the technocratic approach works. If this circular logic is allowed to run out of control there emerges a very serious danger that the technocratic state could enter a cycle of constantly reproducing itself, of commissioning another study, another taskforce, and another consultant, all while social problems continue to fester unabated.
A different problem is that nonpartisan expertise is hardly ever actually nonpartisan. In matters of governance and political economy, knowledge infamously intersects with power. What is taken to be preferable or intolerable is almost always a political decision, and this decision greatly determines what sort of solutions technocratic politics produces.
In sum, it’s essential that Furey’s politics not be confused as vague, fluid, or absent altogether. If we take Furey at his spoken word, we discover a very particular political approach. It is deeply invested in existing power structures, in the governance of the many by an elite, highly credentialed, and highly-paid few. It is an approach that sees this province’s political problems as being far too complicated for the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and as better handled by nonpartisan appointees.
With alleged nepotism, with a technocrat as premier who is insulated from the process by the hired elite, decisions will be made without public knowledge. What is happening is what you expect to happen and will continue to happen.