Subject: Public-Private-Partnerships at root of corruption in
Government de
Anyone with an interest in the political process, which includes
every citizen, should understand the connections between democratic
Government, protection of the Commons, Public-Private-Partnerships and
corruption.
I mentioned that the (Conservative) Saskatchewan Party
announced a Department of Public-Private-Partnerships (if they are
elected). When the leader of a political party can make the statement
made by Brad Wall, leader of the Sask Party, it is an indication to me that
few people have made the connections. The statement SHOULD have been
suicidal for anyone in politics. I've sent the following to all members
of the Legislature. It is a version of information circulated to you in
other emails. (You don't have to read it!)
For me it is actually
the central issue in the current Federal
Election.
/Sandra ------------------------
SUBJECT:
Question before accepting Public-Private-Partnerships
CBC
Radio suppertime news, Monday January 9th, Brad Wall announced that
the Saskatchewan Party would replace the Department of Industry and
Natural Resources with a Department of Public- Private-Partnerships.
I
would like to thank Brad for opening the question to scrutiny.
The false
idea of Public-Private-Partnerships has been embraced by different political
parties: - the Conservatives (Michael Wilson, Federal Finance Minister
in Government of Brian Mulroney was one of the early promoters of the idea in
about 1982). - the Liberals under Jean Chretien accelerated the agenda. -
I don't know the Federal NDP position, but in Saskatchewan the NDP has
in various forms pursued "partnering". Agwest Biotech Inc. with almost
100 percent of its operating funds coming from the Government would be
an example.
That thing which destroys democratic functioning -
corruption - which we all abhor and which is a major issue in the current
Federal Election has its roots in Public-Private-Partnerships. We have
25 years of experience with the idea of Public-Private-Partnerships.
The experience substantiates what the thinkers of our day tell us.
There is a cause-and-effect relationship between Public-Private-Partnerships
and corruption.
Corruption is necessarily part of a system where the
Regulator is a co-investor with the Corporations-To-Be-Regulated: there is
no one left to provide effective regulation and supervision. There is
no one minding the store.
The looting that occurred with Hurricane
Katrina demonstrates what happens when no one is minding the store - people
will take what they can for their own benefit with no regard for the common
or long-term good. The failure to protect the commons, for whatever
reason, is at the root of unsustainable practices. Easy example:
a community that over-allocates or that allows contamination of its water
supply cannot survive in the longer term. Robust democracy is the
guardian of the commons, in this example the water supply.
It should be
no surprise then, that the Government of Canada suffers from chronic and
high-level corruption. The corruption is predictable. Jane Jacobs'
"Systems of Survival, the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics" sets
forth a framework for understanding that the system of governance will
succumb to corruption if we fail to appreciate the functional roles of two
separately evolved sets of ethics, one for the commercial function in a
society and the other for governance (guardianship).
But, "Societies
need both commercial and guardian work . the two types are prone to
corruption if they stray across either their functional or
moral barriers."
The formation of Public Private Partnerships is not
only "straying across" the functional barriers, it is the having of
intercourse between the two. With corruption, people of power and influence
sack "the commons" at the expense of others in the society. Democratic
governance disappears. Look in Africa - the same process is at work here in
Canada.
If we don't get rid of the idea that Public-Private-Partnerships
are acceptable in democratic government, we will not be able to protect
the water supply, seeds or other components of the commons against
exploitation.
Jacobs says: "The relationship between a regulator and the
regulated. must never become one in which the regulator loses sight of the
principle that it regulates only in the public interest and not in the
interest of the regulated."
Use water as an example. Brad sets
forth the idea of a Department of Public Private Partnerships to replace the
Department of Natural Resources. The logical evolution is to a business
partnership with Government for our water resource. Who will look after
the interest of citizens? Selling water is to abandon our water supply
to corporate and "power" interests. The entrenchment of the Public Private
Partnership system of governance in Canada ensures that it can be no other
way. Oil and gas reserves, forests, and other natural resources - water is
but another resource to be exploited. And believe me there are many people
who see the dollar signs flickering before their eyes - the "blue
gold".
No one has a "stake" in "the commons", in this example, in the
water supply - it belongs to us all and to other life forms. In a democracy
it is specifically the role of Government to protect the components of
the commons. It's not up for sale or exploitation. (And by the
way, PPP's are also known as "Picking Public Pockets".)
We have high
levels of chronic corruption in Canadian Government, most apparent at the
Federal level and don't forget the Saskatchewan Govt of Grant Devine.
But "corruption" is NOT the issue; it is an EFFECT, a SYMPTOM, or RESULT --
not a CAUSE. Corruption is the consequence of the failure to keep the
commercial and governing functions in the society separated.
Public-Private-Partnerships ("P3's or PPP's) are the problem. The corruption
is EXTREMELY predictable if you understand the dynamics of ethics.
If
the CAUSE of the corruption is not understood and addressed, we do not stand
a chance of protecting the commons upon which we are all dependent. Think of
the water supply or think of a parallel example: the ownership of seeds
which are also part of the commons. When Government forms partnerships
with corporations to "develop" seed stocks, there is no one left to
regulate. The corporation appropriates for itself the
commons (ownership of seeds) which rightfully belong to all people and
creatures.
We have Justice Krever, Commission of Inquiry on the Blood
System in Canada, 1996 "Industry can't be regulated by government - and
for environmental and health reasons they must be - if that government is
in bed with them."
Mae-Wan Ho, Genetic engineering - Dream or Nightmare?,
1998 "To reassure us, they lie to us, and then treat us as idiots by
insisting on things we all know are untrue. Not only does this prevent a
reasonable debate from taking place, but it also creates a very unhealthy
relationship between citizens and their elected representatives."
John
Ralston Saul, "Health Care at the End of the Twentieth Century", 1999 "The
Panel identified. serious concerns about the undermining of the scientific
basis for risk regulation in Canada due to. the conflict of interest created
by giving to regulatory agencies the mandates both to promote the development
of agricultural technologies and to regulate it."
From John Kenneth
Galbraith's "The Economics of Innocent Fraud - Truth for our Time", published
in 2004 : "... As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the
public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest. That is its
purpose. ...One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the
quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no question but that
corporate influence extends to the regulators. . Needed is independent,
honest, professionally competent regulation ... This last must be recognized
and countered. There is no alternative to effective supervision.
"
So: our experience and the thinkers of the day tell us =
the same
thing: the corruption and break-down of the rule of law in Canada have their
roots in "public-private-partnerships". The most egregious examples are in
the area of biotechnology where the Governments have taken to bed the most
corrupt and corrupting of partners - the chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech
complex of companies. (Monsanto fined $700 million in Alabama, Dow Chemical
fined $1 million by the Attorney General of New York State, Monsanto found
guilty of bribery in Indonesia, Monsanto and attempted bribery over Bovine
Growth Hormone in Canada, Senate Hearing, Bill Moyers' documentary on PBS,
"Trade Secrets", Interveners on the side of Monsanto in the Schmeiser case
are BioTec Canada and AgWest Biotech, both are "Government fronts"
(publicly funded organizations but their name doesn't tell you that), the
infamous "IBT Laboratories" scandal in the 1980's that involved the chemical
and pharmaceutical companies, etc. etc.)
With
public-private-partnerships we have strayed very far down a bad road. You
create the conditions for tensions in the society, for anger, for citizen
non-compliance with law and regulations, and in the end for resistance if
influential interests in the society are allowed to enrich themselves at the
expense of others and future generations.
When you work on sustainability
issues (sustainable water supplies, etc.) you come to realize that robust
democracy is a necessary pillar of sustainability. The function of
Government in a democracy is to defend "the commons" against those who would
appropriate it for their own benefit. The commons are necessary for the
survival of everyone. If you don't have strong democratic
Government that protects, regulates and supervises the use of the commons
(air, water, soil, seeds, public money, knowledge), if you don't have
someone "minding the store", you gradually fall into corruption and
chaos.
IF Government does not get back to its job of regulating,
supervision and protection; if public-private-partnerships are not
outlawed, corruption MUST continue to escalate because of the cause and
effect relationship.
Thank you Brad for opening the subject to
discussion.
Yours truly, Sandra Finley Saskatoon, SK S7N
0L1 306-373-8078 sabest1@sasktel.net
--
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date:
1/20/2006