CKNW Editorial
for June 26, 2001

What do electoral reform, the health care system and Translink have in common? A very common failing of us humans, that's what.

We have debated electoral reform in this country since it was founded. We've had conventions, learned writing and political promises yet have done nothing. Zilch. Why?

There are two reasons - powerful people in the system know that a change in that system would cost them their lofty and entrenched positions. Which leads to the second reason - these powerful people are able discourage change on the grounds that the change would carry with it some downers.
We have debated the health care system ad nauseum and have a system that is past being in crisis - it's approaching the disastrous. Yet nothing is ever done. Why?

Because the powerful players in the present system see changes as attacking their entrenchment or taking away some part of their share of the pie. In order to preserve the status quo with the only improvements being to their own sacrosanct position they point out all the likely flaws in any new system proposed and leave the impression that what we have can only be improved upon, not changed.

I don't remember the time we weren't debating transportation for the Lower Mainland. And although there have been several changes to the way it's run, we now have a situation where those who run the system don't want the system to change because their positions in it would be altered and they give us the impression that any changes would not bring about the perfect transit system.

When you think about it, opponents to reform have always resisted change by crying that we will go to hell in a hand cart if changes are made. What they do is raise the bar so high that only perfection will do as the answer to what is being proposed. This puts reformers in an impossible position ... they must, to answer bad situations, prove that what they propose is not only better, but well nigh perfect. Thus the status quo becomes entrenched and immovable.

We have a political system that badly over rewards the successful and badly under rewards second and third place. There are ways to improve this as has been done in many countries but we won't get on with reform because those who succeed under the present system don't want to risk defeat under a new one … thus they make it virtually obligatory that reformers demonstrate that what they propose will be problem free.
We have a health system that cannot give decent service to the ill and does virtually nothing to prevent illness. Yet those who have entrenched positions in that system make the reformers demonstrate that their plans are flawless.

I think it's high time that we debated the great political and social issues of the day with the ambition being to dramatically improve. Of course there are problems with any sort of Proportional Representation system of electing and with the types of institution it spawns. But there are problems in all systems. And we must tell our leaders that we accept that reform
brings its own problems to be dealt with.

Of course there are problems with the healthcare systems in Europe and elsewhere that have public/private partnerships but we must instruct our leaders that we are prepared to deal with new sets of problems if reform would in fact make things much better.

Yes, there are problems with any transit system that allows locally, directly elected officials to raise money locally for transit but surely we must say to our leaders "anything would be better than what we have."

My point is a simple one – when considering a reform we must ask ourselves not if it will produce perfection or anything like it but will it change things, substantially for the better. Not will it be fair – because life itself isn’t fair – but will it be much fairer. Will our society be better off, better treated and better governed … those are the tests we should apply to all proposals of reform.