Deep Change & Deep Disappointment

I've been giving a lot of thought to the Governor General's actions yesterday, and like many of you, I am profoundly disappointed. There was a brief moment when the truly amazing was possible. We had the opportunity for change, and instead, she sided with the status quo. This, of course, shouldn't really surprise us. Who really likes change?

Here's an outstanding quote from Robert Quinn's classic on the subject, Deep Change. It's from the first section, entitled Deep Change or Slow Death:

"Deep change differs from incremental change in that it requires new ways of thinking and behaving. It is change that is major in scope, discontinuous with the past and generally irreversible. The deep change effort distorts existing patterns of action and involves taking risks. Deep change means surrendering control."

Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work.

If the headline of my Vancouver Sun this morning is to be believed, Canadians don't want deep change. We don't like deep change. We don't want a coalition government, we want another election. And, when we get that election, we're going to give Stephen Harper a majority. This may surprise some of our nonCanadian friends who have been playing along at home, but this reaction is truly...well, Canadian.

• We don't like to make trouble. When faced with a situation where an arrogant, ideologically driven leader in a minority government decides he can do whatever he wants without consulting anyone, we act. No, we don't hold him accountable, we desire instead to give him a majority so he can do the same thing in good conscience.

• We don't like to embarrass our appointed figure heads. If the GG decides to ignore the non-confidence motion signed by every single one of the opposition MPs (representing 62% of the population) and instead shut the government down for six weeks, well then dammit, it must be the right thing to do.

Lets be honest - many of us believe we are now living in an age where everything must change. And everything is changing. Our economic system, in a flash of self-awareness and guilt, recently decided it could no longer go on and tried to throw itself under a bus. This is insight! (Notwithstanding the fact that we're currently spending hundreds of billions--nay, trillions-- of dollars on hospital care and life support.)

Our political systems must change. In a sign that they are at least willing to test the waters in this department, our friends to the south have elected an African American man to the highest office in the nation, who ran on a platform of change. As Canadians, we had an opportunity to signal our intention to turn our own political reality upside down as well, but we blinked. Or, more correctly, the powers that be blinked, and being the passive folks that we are, that's good enough for us.

Too bad.

Addendum: Check out what Some Canuck Chick had to say on the whole thing, because she has said it well.

Comments

[Jordon Cooper]

Mike, I don't like what Harper did politically anymore than the next guy but at the same time he is allowed to do what he asked her to do and she was within her bounds to do it.

There are rumors that if she accepted the coalition government, everyone of the Tory MPs would resign which would have forced an election anyways. Also there have been a lot of rumblings that the coalition wasn't as tight as proclaimed and some Liberal MPs would have quit. I think she was probably privy to more information than just the Prime Minister's.

At the end of the day, six weeks ago more Canadian ridings chose a Harper lead government than any other party and that is hard to ignore.

Over the next year or so I am sure Canadians will have a chance to pick a new government and we will be able to speak our minds then.

[Mike]

I hear you bro. I never suggested what she did was not allowed under the rules. I just think it was the easy way out.

"Mike, I don't like what Harper did politically anymore than the next guy but..."

I'm obviously taking your words out of context Jordon, but too many of us are starting sentences with those words these days. He's blackmailing the country, daring us to try and hold him accountable, and we're letting him get away with it for fear of the mess it will make if we stand up and say no.

Let's make a mess.

[Jordon Cooper]

I agree with you but let's do that in an election that doesn't involve a coalition with those who are determined to break up Canada.

I agree with John Manley, this was as much a result of Stephane Dion's weak leadership (and bad camera work) as it was from a Prime Minister that needs to go to a 12 step program for overly partisan idiots.

Harper was wrong but the right place to do it in an election. Brian Mulroney/Kim Campbell comes to mind.

[matt]

A little disappointed to see you paint with a wide brush by suggesting that those who don't want a coalition don't want deep change. All these politicians are serving the same master. When I hear the phrase deep change; I am thinking about transformational living, living radically,and even surrendering control. But these men have done nothing in my mind to show that they are actually calling us to any of these things. Until they can show that, I can't endorse it. This is no way an endorsement of Harper either--he is as manipulative and un-radical as the rest. Unless they really focus on radical deep change, we will continue to be in deep shit.

[Dave]

Jordon: As understand the issue of leadership (and there are many forms of that) a real leader has/should have TWO qualities: First, micro - the brains and know-how technically to to the job, be it as pastor, mechanic, branch manager, CEO or-really up there - P.M. Second: Macro - The "soft" qualities such as motivation, team spirit and the broad view of the project. A bit of charisma (a sense of humour?) helps. At the moment (time will tell) Obama seems to have both. Problem is that Harper and Dion seem to have neither. Pity. DT

[Mike]

Some good comments here which give me a chance to clarify a few issues. The over-arching reality for me is the fact that I don't approach this thing from a partisan perspective. Yes, I don't care for Stephen Harper's leadership, or his ideology. Yes, I vote. But, more than anything I am trying to incorporate my politics into my faith (all together now: "and not the other way around.) I readily admit (and embrace) the fact that when it comes to my views on politics (as opposed to my political views, which sounds partisan to my ears) I am as far out there on the fringe as it appears I am when it comes to matters of Christian faith.

Jordon, on the election front I have a couple of thoughts. First, we just spent a lot of money on an election, and it would not be responsible to have another one so soon. Also, to state the obvious, every currently sitting MP was elected. In fact, as I've said before, we don't elect governments, they are formed after we elect MPs. In that sense, a coalition of MPs would reflect the outcome of the election. And at 62%, well, that leads us off down that rabbit-hole...

Secondly, based on the current polls, if given the chance, we just might give Stephen Harper a majority! This is crazy, and based, I believe, on our passivity and ambivalence as Canadian voters. Here comes my outrageous comment: Based on my position as a fringe-dwelling Jesus Follower, I don't want to simply settle for that, I want to push the envelope. From where I'm sitting, everything must change, and this certainly includes out political institutions. I don't want a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition government because I'd like to eventually see a Liberal or NDP or--well, lets leave it at that--majority government. I'd like to see a coalition government because to my mind governing by coalition is the closest we can get to leadership through community. I'm not backing a different horse here, I want to change the race.

And Matt, I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I'm suggesting those who don't want a coalition don't want deep change. I'm trying to deal with the reality of the moment, and the specific decision that the GG was faced with. Her options were limited, and I believe she opted for propping up the status quo. It's that specific moment, and the failure to choose deep change, that has generated my deep disappointment.

You know a lot of my story, and it's my view, based on my experience, that deep change does not evolve peacefully. We don't wake up on a sunny morning and decide to turn things upside down because it feels right, or because we're bored. Decisions of deep change are usually forced upon us, most often against our will, and almost always in less than ideal circumstances.

Look at me, the guy who usually has his head in the clouds, playing the role of the pragmatist here!

Looking forward to feedback on these thoughts.