In an earlier entry I argued that governments should, as a rule, not oppose the people. I suggested that if the government lost a case to a citizen, the government should not appeal. Because the government IS the people, it should be glad a citizen won.

Such a situation has arisen in British Columbia. A mother has won the original case and every appeal. The government says it will ask the federal Supreme Court to rule. The issue is whether the government should pay for the special education required by a child because of his medical condition. The court said "yes". The appeals court said "yes". The provincial supreme court said "yes". The British Columbia government should announce "We are pleased to accept the decision that we are going to fund the education of your child. We are happy to have the opportunity to see that your child is educated to the best of his abilitiy, because both you and he are citizens of this province."

The government is not above the people. The government IS the people.

The Government IS the People

Part of the trouble with many municipal, provincial, state, or federal governments these days is that they consider themselves to be better or more knowledgeable than the people. Consider this example:

A citizen feels he has been assessed too high a tax, so the citizen appeals. The citizen wins. The government appeals the decision.

The government’s appeal bothers me. I think that, as much as possible, the government and the people should not be adversaries. The government IS the people. In retail sales, “The customer is always right” is a winning motto. Just so should be “the government errs on the side of citizens”. If a judge has decided in favour of the citizen, the government should be glad, or at least satisfied. If I were president or prime minister, one of my rules will be “Unless it believes a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, the government will not appeal a judgement in favour of a citizen.”

Why do governments in democracies consider them above the people. After all, the governments do not merely represent the people, they ARE the people. They are composed of citizens, no better, no worse, than the typical citizen. Yes, they may have more money (that may be part of the problem), or more education than some. But the point is, members of the legislature should consider themselves citizens employed by other citizens. And that’s it.

Should the government be allowed to keep the details of its meetings secret? In general, (i.e. unless matters of serious national security are involved) no. If the people want to know what has been discussed, they should be able to find out, without going to court. After all, the government representatives in the meeting ARE the people.

Should censor boards exist? Should government representatives decide what books a citizen can read or what films a citizen may watch? Of course not. The government is not a parent. The people in government should have no more say than you regarding what you may do, as long as your actions do not hurt others.

The last sentence is important, however. We do give governments the mandate to make rules that serve society itself, like “Drive on the right” or “Contribute (via taxes) to educate the citizens of tomorrow.” However, the government should be willing, as much as possible, to accept the citizen’s view.

If a judge has ruled that the citizen is correct, the government should say “OK. I accept the ruling,”, because both the citizen and the government are the People.