The politics of anaesthesia
When a person undergoes any significant type of medical emergency they are normally given some kind of anaesthetic to help them manage the pain. Over time the anaesthetic is reduced and they emerge from the post operative state hopefully better than when they started. Since time immemorial anaesthetic has been used to mange pain as we transition from one state to another. However if we apply the metaphor to governments everywhere they seem to be using anaesthetic not to mange transitions, but to prevent them occurring at all.
The story runs a bit like this. A section of the community is being impacted by one or other of the powerful future forces now in place in our society. These people complain of their pain and most wise governments listen. What then happens though is that far from using the mechanisms of government to manage the transition, the change is prevented from happening at all. When the next potential change comes the pattern is repeated. At this point the community has an expectation that in any time of pain the government will stop it. They have become addicted to the anaesthetic and wary of change. They will punish any government that suggests otherwise. Regrettably with few exceptions what we see now is political parties of all persuasions competing not on their change management abilities but for their persuasiveness in the amount of anaesthesia they can apply.
The examples of where this occurs are many. For some reason many communities believe it is important that their name is stuck on the side of an aeroplane. They expect governments to protect this image at a time where airlines are consolidating into post national entities. The Swiss government poured millions into trying to keep Swissair afloat and recently, the most profitable of all airlines, Qantas used the government to stop Singapore Airlines flying on the profitable transpacific route. Important as these examples are nowhere do we see some governments using anaesthetic more liberally than in the challenges around the environment and oil. Have we become addicted to a world where the environment doesn’t matter and fossil fuels are ours to use in whatever careless way we chose? And what over time might be the consequences of such an addiction?
The story runs a bit like this. A section of the community is being impacted by one or other of the powerful future forces now in place in our society. These people complain of their pain and most wise governments listen. What then happens though is that far from using the mechanisms of government to manage the transition, the change is prevented from happening at all. When the next potential change comes the pattern is repeated. At this point the community has an expectation that in any time of pain the government will stop it. They have become addicted to the anaesthetic and wary of change. They will punish any government that suggests otherwise. Regrettably with few exceptions what we see now is political parties of all persuasions competing not on their change management abilities but for their persuasiveness in the amount of anaesthesia they can apply.
The examples of where this occurs are many. For some reason many communities believe it is important that their name is stuck on the side of an aeroplane. They expect governments to protect this image at a time where airlines are consolidating into post national entities. The Swiss government poured millions into trying to keep Swissair afloat and recently, the most profitable of all airlines, Qantas used the government to stop Singapore Airlines flying on the profitable transpacific route. Important as these examples are nowhere do we see some governments using anaesthetic more liberally than in the challenges around the environment and oil. Have we become addicted to a world where the environment doesn’t matter and fossil fuels are ours to use in whatever careless way we chose? And what over time might be the consequences of such an addiction?
posted by Mike at 8:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home