Last week, fellow columnist Gerry Chidiac mentioned "political will" as a reason to support proportional representation which got me thinking about what is political will?
It is one of those terms people use in a number of ways and on many occasions but is ill-defined.
"We can solve climate change if we only have the political will," or "We can eliminate poverty if we have the political will," or "We can get more money for our oil if we have the political will."
Whose will? And how will it accomplish these or any other goal?
Is political will synonymous with the will of the masses? In a dictatorship, is it simple the whims of the leader? How do we reconcile these differences?
Political will has been defined by some authors as "the slipperiest concept in the policy lexicon."
It is something defined more by its absence than presence. We know, for example, there is very little political will to legalize LSD or other hard drugs.
But defining something by what it is not doesn't really give us an operational definition of what it is.
Three political scientists - Lori Ann Post of Yale and Amber Raile and Eric Raile of North Dakota State University - took a crack at it in a 2010 paper entitled Defining Political Will. They contend political will requires a sufficient set of decision makers to support a particular initiative by being publicly committed to the outcome.
There must be enough people in a position of power to support the desired reform. It also needs to take into account the possible power of veto - people who are in a position to block a particular initiative or derail a reform.
What counts as a sufficient set of decision makers varies greatly depending on the issues and the political system in which they are presented. In a democracy we hold referenda to determine the collective view of the public, but does that translate into political will? Only if the decision makers in position to enact legislation follow through on the results of the referendum in a manner consistent with the intent of the referendum.
Democracies are complex and there are often a number of points where a veto might occur. The results must abide by existing laws and within the framework of the Constitution. The vote on any issue - while expressing the will of the people - might not stand up even with political will behind it. The decision makers may not have a choice.
In Defining Political Will, the authors point out other requirements for the development or expression of political will. Perhaps the most important is the question of whether there is a common understanding of a particular problem or issue. This is perhaps the most difficult to judge and the most difficult to accomplish.
Consider climate change. There are many people who believe climate change is an issue and should be addressed. There are a significant number who want to deny its existence or that it is anthropogenic in origin or that it is something we can do anything about either from a pragmatic approach or without severely undermining our economic structure and affluent lifestyle. Many people on both sides of the issue think it is not one we can resolve.
How do we develop political will without a consensus on the nature of the problem and its consequences?
On the other hand, consider the depletion of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons. This was a very different type of problem with very visible consequence - increased levels of skin cancer. It was resolved because there was a very specific cause (CFCs) which could be phased out of production without severely impacting the economy. Indeed, replacing CFCs spawned economic opportunities.
Developing the political will to address the issue was relatively straightforward resulting in the Montreal Protocol.
Establishing political will requires an understanding of the specific problem we are trying to solve and often there are a variety of opinions on what are the issues.
How do we proceed when a consensus can't be achieved?
For example, this past week saw the Conservative Party undergo something of an implosion due to substantial differences over policy issues.
Should we or should we not have supply management systems? How about immigration? Or abortion?
Political will is a slippery concept. It is hard to manufacture and difficult to maintain. It is often results in the majority dictating to the minority and sometimes the minority dictating to the majority.
But as Margaret Meade put it: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world: indeed it's the only thing that ever has."
