Ford’s problematic plan for municipal reform
What is driving Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s stealth attack on municipal governance in Toronto, York, Peel, Niagara and Muskoka?
Ford’s timing is clear enough. If he does not make his move now, he won’t have another opportunity for four years, when he will be facing re-election.
But why this selective attack on local democracy? Ford’s email response to his critics says that he “promised to reduce the size and cost of government” because “too many politicians” make it “harder to get things done and get things built.” He says that this is “particularly true at the municipal level,” with Toronto his prime example.
If Ford truly wanted to reform municipal government in Ontario, would he not initiate a province-wide conversation about good local government with a framework that clearly sets out his vision? His decision, instead, to unilaterally impose a less representative, less inclusive and less democratic form of government in some parts of Ontario renders his motivation suspect.
It has been suggested that Ford is driven by vendetta.
Sure, his relations with left-leaning Toronto city councillors were toxic. However, I do not believe that it is the sole reason, when considering his track record and his self-image as a successful businessman, an anti-politician and a practical decision maker.
Ford is driven by a radical form of conservatism that is the antithesis of the Red Toryism of yesteryears. It is intolerant of, or, at least, impatient with dissent, discussion and consultation. For him, government should run as a business, and rely on business to deliver programs and services.
Ford has made no secret of his contempt for the politicians he sees as dogooders and social workers with no idea of “the real world.”
This perspective is reflected in his criticism that Toronto city council, with its 44 members, is dysfunctional and inefficient. Evidently, he prefers the model of a homogeneous corporate board of like-minded people, which will approve decisions quickly and without too much debate, prefer backroom deal-making to public examination of issues and options, make the bottom line the most important criterion for decisions and substitute consultation with a paternalistic “we know best” way of doing business.
Those who need the city’s supports and services are clients and customers, not participants and stakeholders having a say in decision-making on matters affecting them.
As councillor, Ford was impatient with city hall’s way of decision-making, based on staff reports and public input. The manner in which he tried to introduce his idea of a waterfront entertainment park illustrated his preferred approach. He was incensed when his proposal was rejected because of its lack of a full analysis and proper study.
But it was illustrative of more than that. The entertainment park, if approved, would have been a boon to business. Profit, not the public interest, took precedence.
The impact of Ford’s scheme will be far-reaching. By radically upending representative democracy, it will have seri- ous implications for how city government serves those in need, the marginalized and the unprivileged. Social policy will be driven even more vehemently than is the case now by a fiscal policy reflecting his mantra of “respect for the taxpayer,” and not the other way around.
There is always room for improving governance.
But the answer to the question of how many councillors are needed to provide good government must depend on a clear understanding of what is meant by good government and how the criteria of functionality and efficiency are defined.
A democratic government should be deemed to be functioning well and efficiently when it produces results that benefit all segments of the community, not just the rich and powerful, and when it makes decisions transparently, based on sound evidence, with the full participation of all who will be affected.
Is Ford’s move solely driven by vendetta? Or is it a clever move to turn the targeted regions into an even more profitable playground for the privileged than they already are?
Construction, cannabis and casinos; privatization and outsourcing of public services. Opportunity beckons and timing matters.
Any negative effect of this stealth attack on democracy and political careers is mere collateral damage.