Recently, the question of whether Minister Steven Guilbeault would approve the Bay du Nord offshore oil megaproject has been the subject of special attention. The green light for this project not only seemed to contradict the Trudeau government’s long-term commitments to the environment, but it also seemed to be in clear contradiction to Mr. Guilbeault’s personal vision as an environmental activist.
When a person consciously chooses a career path that they believe will help them contribute in some way to social transformation and their vision for a better world, they will more often than not face the choosing the best way to achieve their goals. Can we achieve better results by working within the existing “system” or do better by remaining outside of this same system? Each choice has its pros and cons.
The work of activists
By choosing to work outside the “system” as an activist or member of an NGO, a person finds several advantages. Perhaps most importantly, she doesn’t have to constantly search for complex compromises. In a typical nonprofit organization, all staff as well as board members effectively share the same vision for society, and any debate about how to move towards that vision is normally free from rancor. Often the greatest challenge for members is to ensure that the means are consistent with the ends.
There is a kind of purity and sense of togetherness in the process. Most nonprofit mission statements are known to be unachievable; they are deliberately idealistic; they shine like an ever-distant beacon reminding all of the challenges ahead, but most are rooted in the bedrock of previous progression. Equality for women, for example, is not complete, and may never be, but huge, measurable progress has been made, and the beacon of promise still shines brightly.
For the activist, there is an indisputable joy in leading the parade in helping to articulate the best of humanity’s potential. That being said, this option also has major drawbacks: militants will most likely never have full job security, they will not benefit from a foolproof pension plan, armored insurance or organizational pensions, nor high level salaries.
There is also a risk of ideological frustration. The young activist who undertakes to “change the world” is quickly placed before the harsh reality: almost all social progress is made in a slow evolutionary process. For some, their idealism will turn into cynicism, a defeatism that stems from a sense of hopelessness in the face of entrenched systemic injustices.
But, for the confirmed militant, these limits are more than compensated by the intellectual freedom and action that he can experience. Fortunately, most of them stay engaged, sometimes taking a voluntary route if their professional ambitions cannot be met.
Within the political system
For idealists who choose to work within the political system, there are a series of seemingly opposing advantages and disadvantages. A government route generally offers good financial and employment security.
In many ways, however, it is effectively missing a significant set of professional challenges. In most cases, one is closer to the exercise of power. Unlike the career activist, for whom the final decisions on almost all social issues lie elsewhere, beyond his reach, the insider is near or part of the corridors of power, important decisions are made daily, decisions that will have a direct impact on thousands of lives.
A difficult reality, however, is that within the ‘system’, especially a democratic system of government, decisions must be consistent with the actual politics of the day. Public decisions are never personal decisions; they are the result of the search for a political balance. They reflect a rigorous system of checks and balances that renders most contributors’ input anonymous. They are the expression of the whole; they can never be attributed to the officials who carefully crafted them.
Many activists move into governmental or intergovernmental bodies and, conversely, many civil servants are drawn into the non-profit sector. This is common practice both ways. It can bring a precious and healthy change of energy, especially if one is well aware of the various limits to which one will now have to comply.
The announcement made by Steven Guilbeault does not in any way imply that he has changed his mind, he has simply changed his job, a job in which he must now accept to be part of a compromise. It represents progress, not perfection.