Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 01

January/February 2018 // Canadian Government Executive / 41 Governing Digitally Prime Minister invoked high levels of satisfaction with his Govern- ment as a reason for reneging on this core campaign commitment. A new website housed by the Privy Council Office acknowledges this shift – one of several promises not being pursued despite the vast majority either underway or having already been completed. Meant to increase transparency and accountability – and inspired by the deliverology movement that has encapsulated central agen- cies over the past two years – this Mandate Letter Tracker is meant to provide a novel and online report card on the Government’s ac- tions and progress. Although such reporting can be a useful window on the Gov- ernment’s own priorities and thinking, there are two major short- comings. First, as many observers have noted, this mechanism is hardly objective, akin to students grading their own exams. The result can be heightened cynicism in a world where the public is undoubtedly weary of the constant messaging of Government no- bility and accomplishment. According to the 2017 Edelman Barom- eter, trust in government in Canada declined ten per cent (placing us in the “distrusting” category for the first time). The second flaw – one that extends more widely than its new website – is the Government’s highly traditional notion of trust based much more on deference than on duty. In other words, the Liberals are showcasing their good intentions and (where appro- priate) achievements, delivering on results and providing analyt- ics. Ideally, the Edelman survey notwithstanding, a virtuous circle of heightened public confidence then yields votes in 2019. Yet for democracy to strengthen, trust must also be earned through more direct forms of engagement which can often entail elements of duty. As with jury service, personal taxes, and business compliance measures, many aspects of public sector governance are based on covenants where stakeholders have responsibilities to act in appropriate manners. In the digital realm especially, the Liberals have failed to define service as a two-way proposition, instead promising only to bet- ter deliver services and to provide more data. What’s lost is how to involve citizen’s more directly in service design, data sharing, and democratic conversations – and how to leverage such involvement as a basis for civic capacities that aremore collective than individual. Admittedly, such an orientation is a tough sell in an online uni- verse predicated on commercialization: Amazon’s distribution warehouses are dubbed fulfilment centers for a reason. The In- ternet connects, but can also greatly dilute ties while creating im- mense competition for attention: check out the phone of anyone under forty and the myriad of notifications awaiting. A friendly invitation from government – to complete a survey or check out an online report card – is unlikely to have much impact. Deliverology, then, is insufficient for democratic adaptation. Some combination of electronic and mandatory voting merits seri- ous consideration, but the latter is clearly a non-starter in our pres- ent online culture. Creating new opportunities and incentives for participation are worthwhile endeavours; at some point, however, mandates and rules for an otherwise passive, distracted and frag- mented citizenry must also be part of a new democratic mix. J effrey R oy is professor in the School of Public Administration at Dalhousie University (roy@dal.ca ). What’s lost is how to involve citizen’s more directly in service design, data sharing, and democratic conversations – and how to leverage such involvement as a basis for civic capacities that are more collective than individual.