The Role of a Constructive Critic in Governance

I had the pleasure, some years ago, of attending a social gathering at Queen’s Park in Toronto. At some point I was introduced to someone and in a whispered aside was told – he is the (portfolio) critic.

I shook his hand and said, “that’s the job I want.”

He didn’t think it was funny and didn’t understand my meaning. After all, if you are the opposition critic it means you are not in power, so why would anyone want that job?

I was being pleasantly facetious. I had a point but didn’t bother to explain. Rather I said that it sounded interesting and then listened while he explained his job in far more detail than I cared to have.

But now, many years later, this is what I meant.

Being a critic can be easy. Whatever is proposed, you find fault. Whatever is enacted, you point out the flaws. And in today’s political climate you are critical of the minister in charge of that portfolio or the individual with an opposing point of view. I think it is shameful, the way the role of critic became adversarial; synonymous with detractor, fault finder and attacker.

An opposing point of view is an important part of good decision making. The difficult questions should be asked. The inquisitive mind should raise issues that have not been discussed. That is good governance. But when an individual becomes the “official” critic of their board, committee or council they are missing the point.

You do not have to agree with the final decision but you should be satisfied that it was well thought out. That is an appropriate role for the critic, for the devil’s advocate or for anyone who wants to ensure a fulsome discussion on the merits.

My advice? Don’t be critical. Don’t fall into the trap of being the contrary voice on everything – that’s too easy. Instead, be a critic – one who judges the merits, who considers alternatives, who probes for answers. That can be difficult. It requires that you understand the proposal, that you offer observations on perceived shortcomings, that you can envision alternatives or remedies. It means that sometimes you have to accept that there is no perfect solution (not even yours) and be satisfied that the risks and shortcomings have been considered.

Criticism should be evaluative and corrective. The role of the critic should be to help craft the best possible policy or reach a viable conclusion, within the constraints of available resources. The critic does this with good intention and an open mind. To do otherwise undermines this important role and will sow dissatisfaction and disharmony.