I propose that the four Pillars have a symbiotic relationship with each other.
Symbiotic is like mutually beneficial, but there is a slight difference between the two terms. Symbiosis implies that if the relationship breaks down it will damage one or more of the entities that are in the relationship. (Mutually beneficial does not generally imply this, or at least not as strongly anyway).
Symbiosis within the Pillars is observed by following the process by which decisions are made, how boards, Oireachtas committees, enquiries, expert groups, advisors etc. are appointed and set up, how funding is allocated, how people move between one and the other – that is, public servants and/or academics become politicians, politicians and/or journalists become lobbyists [1], journalists become politicians etc. etc. It is also observed by noting what gets national attention and what doesn’t.
This probably works reasonably well for decisions in mainstream society, as people put up with the perceived unfairness and bias that is caused by what might be termed the cosiness between them all, (and complain a lot) but do little to challenge the structure which perpetuates it.
I will argue that the Pillars, perhaps unwittingly, and even in a well-meaning way, (but that doesn’t matter to the families who are the subject of this website), in respect of our Focus Group:
~ Foster a sense of dependence.
~ Dampen down or dilute innate wisdom, strength, creativity, and knowledge which are rarely if ever acknowledged not to mention valued.
~ Contribute to loss of self-esteem, confidence, and ultimately dignity.
In terms of intractable, or difficult-to-solve societal problems like crime and imprisonment or protection of vulnerable children, the symbiotic, self-perpetuating relationship between politics, academia, higher civil/public service and media searches for solutions by debating, unendingly, the issues of the day, on radio, TV and newspapers, thinking that the debate in the public eye actually achieves something.
And following the endless debates, in taking action to solve the problems, they only look to people and entities that are deemed to be successful in the normal mainstream societal understanding of the term.
I will argue that by confining decision making to those who have academic qualifications and formal education, (and those who, as I just said, are successful as defined by the Pillars) and ignoring those who don’t, (or aren’t), the Pillars lose out on skill, creativity, intelligence, and most important of all, significantly higher level of tactical nous that many people who have more experiential than academic knowledge possess!
In the Initial Words post describing the Pillars, I said that the private sector was not one. However, its influence is substantial, and increasing as time goes on.
And it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that every time a solution to a serious social problem is left to the private sector it turns out to be a disaster.
I already referenced the research which was very critical of the privatisation of Probation Services in England in Chris Mills Child Protection Blog. And very recently, the cervical smear tests debacle was partly caused by a Government minister (at the time) awarding the contract for the tests to a US private entity against the advice of the Master of the Rotunda Hospital who urged that we do it in Ireland thereby enabling us firstly to have control and secondly build up expertise in our own country. Another disaster that had tragic consequences for so many families.
A very pertinent and contemporary example of this that has a direct negative impact on the Focus Group is placing the responsibility for housing in the hands of private property developers. Another example might be giving private companies contracts for care homes for children. I have met many practitioners working in such homes who have low morale. Surely high morale is a prerequisite for practitioners who have responsibility for the well-being of vulnerable children.
While minding children is hardly a serious social problem, it nonetheless involves a social type situation that can be exploited for profit. The recent creche scandal highlights the dangers of entrusting care of vulnerable people – in this case children – to the private sector – as if we hadn’t learned enough from the scandals involving the care of the elderly.
I have often felt pressure by elements within the Pillars to pursue courses of action that I don’t feel were or are helpful to vulnerable children – because firstly they control the purse-strings, but also they insist that they know best and it is almost impossible to disagree with the sheer power of their arguments.
Ultimately, I will argue that what the Pillars tend to do, in favouring privatisation, is put a fox [2] in charge of chickens. This is more prevalent than ever nowadays as privatisation of services that were always public is becoming more popular – as the market (like the Catholic Church many decades ago) claims it can do things better – letting the Government off the hook.
Because no matter how well-trained, well-intentioned or well-behaved the fox is, or how much he promises, instinct will eventually take over. That is, if he is hungry, he will do what his instincts determine, and if chickens are harmed by his actions – well – that is just nature.
Some of the reasons that the Pillars might choose a fox or foxes, often in spite of much common-sense, dogs-in-the-street [3] type knowledge, might be that:
1. They are seduced by their empty promises.
2. They fulfil some ideological agenda that the Pillars have.
3. Decision makers do not think long-term.
4. They are beholden to them through old-boy networks or financial dealings.
5. The foxes may be even be favoured by academic research.
The foxes market themselves as economical and quick fix, unlike public servants who want secure jobs, pensions, and so are deemed uneconomic – or voluntary groups who are thought to be inefficient anyway.
One wily fox – of course, any fox worth his bushy tail has to be wily – was interviewed one night on TV and he said it all! He was asked about breaking promises that he made during election campaigns and he said, totally unapologetically, that’s what one does during elections.
I believe that this was a pretty honest reflection on the reality of the world of politics, and inadvertently contained a lot of insight into the well-intentioned, vague, broken promises world of the Pillars in general.
While being interdependent, each of the Pillars is unique, as will be described in the posts following.
[1]. A lobbyist is a persuasive, well-connected person who is employed by (usually) groups of powerful or wealthy people to pressurise politicians to spend money on whatever their area of interest is. This could be agriculture, education, academia, construction, big pharma, oil industry etc. etc. (I don’t know anyone who is given big money to lobby for the Focus Group)!
[2]. I generally don’t like using beautiful animals (like rats, vultures, vipers, worms, pigs, sheep, even chickens), to portray aspects of our human personalities that we don’t like, but I hope that the noble sionnach will forgive me in this case – the analogy was too attractive to pass……
[3]. More animalistic analogies – sorry dogs!