A recent opinion piece has sparked a crucial debate about the operational culture within the federal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney. The central question posed is stark: what happens to a skill set when it is not practiced? This inquiry cuts to the heart of concerns about a highly centralized decision-making process emanating from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
The 'Centre' vs. The Periphery: A Familiar Pattern
Drawing parallels to the centralized control seen during Stephen Harper's tenure, the analysis suggests that under Prime Minister Mark Carney, a significant volume of government decisions are being funneled to the 'Centre'—the PMO—rather than being handled by ministers and their departments at the periphery. This trend, according to observers, risks atrophying the very capabilities the government needs to function effectively. The logic is simple and universal: whether in sports or statecraft, a lack of practice leads to diminished proficiency.
The current political landscape is seen as a key driver of this controlling instinct. Operating in a minority Parliament—a situation that could change—creates a perceived need for tight, centralized management to maintain stability and message discipline. Furthermore, Carney's own formidable intellectual reputation and pre-political achievements are contrasted with a cabinet that has yet to establish similar stature, potentially reinforcing a top-down approach.
The Cost of Micromanagement
This centralization has tangible consequences. The argument is made that for a government facing complex national challenges, early and consistent practice for cabinet members, their staff, and the public service is essential. By retaining a 'hand brake' on decision-making, the Centre may be preventing the very experience and confidence-building needed for long-term success.
Beyond efficiency, there is a human cost. The act of requiring sign-off from the Centre on granular details, such as communications materials, is described as demoralizing for the talented individuals working in ministerial offices and line departments. It sends a message of distrust, suggesting that the expertise spread across the "entire government grove" is being underutilized or ignored. As the piece notes, professionals do not join the public service to have every decision second-guessed.
Digital Age Pressures and the Path Forward
The modern media environment exacerbates the desire for control. In an era of always-on digital communication, where any statement can be instantly amplified, the temptation to vet every government utterance is powerful. A minor misstep can become a major crisis in hours, making comprehensive sign-off seem like a necessary risk mitigation strategy.
However, the conclusion is that this model is ultimately counterproductive and unsustainable. No single office, regardless of its talent, possesses the bandwidth or diverse perspective to manage the entire machinery of government effectively. The piece advocates for a shift from control to coordination—empowering trusted teams across ministries to execute within a clear policy framework. The fundamental choice, as framed, is binary: you either trust your team or you don't. For the Liberals to navigate their mandate and restore the country's footing, empowering the broader public service may be not just preferable, but imperative.
