Is Bigger Always Better?

Can anyone remember why we amalgamated and big-boxified government in Halifax? Has anyone stopped to ask how that is working out for us?

It’s Natal Day Weekend. Whatever that is.

For over 200 years Natal Day in Halifax is a civic holiday celebrated on the first Monday in August, marking the founding of Halifax and Dartmouth. This day commemorates the establishment of Halifax in 1749 and Dartmouth in 1750, with festivities often spanning the entire weekend. But no more.

2024 is the 275th anniversary of the founding of the British settlement at Halifax. You might not have heard. Halifax will not be celebrating the 275th anniversary of its founding.

Events that might have been acceptable in the past are now pathologically scrutinized for their broader social implications, cherry-picking fault from history’s tree while ignoring completely the tenor of the times. It is easy in the light of present-day knowledge and achievement to ridicule and condemn the people, the ideas, and the customs of a past age.

But get ready! You’re about to see a mountain of propagandistic celebration coming soon… the 30th anniversary of Amalgamation. This will be the biggest moment of self-celebration and self-congratulation we’ve ever seen from government. It will be like seeing National Day of the People's Republic of China through the wrong end of the telescope. We’ll be going off!

But there’s a problem. It should be a time of reflection, consideration, and review.

Amalgamation - the Big Boxification of Government in Nova Scotia

We just didn't talk about it at the time. Now it's like the water to a fish, it's so present around us it's hard to see. So what category of thing is amalgamation and big box government in general?

Is it capitalist? Socialist? Democratic? Bureaucratic? If it's just efficiency, is that an ideology we need more of? As in the theme of this blog site "All Lines Are Curves", even if some efficiency is a good thing and some cooperation of government is good, is it possible to get too much of a good thing when it comes to bigger and bigger government? Is more always better?

It's time to talk about amalgamation, bureaucracy, and big-box government. To do it, and to make any change happen we’re going to have to put aside old ideas, assumptions, party affiliations, our distaste for politics generally, and a lot of the buzzwords and frameworks that have shaped our thinking and got us here in the first place.

I’ve been following and writing about How We Got Amalgamated and how we got into this Mega City Mess for a while. I’ve also been writing about the limits of bureaucracy.

As we come up to a transformational municipal election this fall and the 30th anniversary of Amalgamation it’s time to stop and talk about your city. For the older folks, is this what you imagined? Is this what you wanted from your city? For the younger folks, do you see a place for yourself, a clear way forward to prosperity in the changes ahead? Immigrants, students, workers, and entrepreneurs, however you identify yourself, can you see the opportunity and promise ahead? Or do you see the empty and heavy concrete of growth without prosperity?

No matter how much momentum the current plan has, give yourself a break. We’re allowed to stop. We’re allowed to think. We’re allowed to stop and start again if we want to go in another direction.

What is this thing?

Amalgamation, the process of merging smaller municipalities into larger entities, is not merely a structural adjustment; it embodies a complex ideological and operational philosophy. This practice can be challenging to categorize within traditional labels such as capitalist, socialist, or democratic because it encapsulates elements of each, depending on its implementation and outcomes.

At its core, amalgamation is a bureaucratic approach, driven primarily by administrative aims—chief among them, efficiency.

The ideology of efficiency that often drives amalgamation initiatives can be seen as a product of managerialism—a belief system that prioritizes management principles typically seen in private sector businesses, such as cost-cutting, standardization, and centralized control. This approach is ostensibly non-partisan, often presented as a practical solution to the problems of governance.

However, this "practicality" can also reflect a certain ideological slant towards centralization and control, traits commonly associated with bureaucratic governance.

Last week I wrote about The Bureaucratic Party, now by far the largest, best organized, most well-financed, and most influential political party in the country. For them, bigger is always better. More power. More control. More Money. More distance from the front line of humanity. Amalgamation is among their greatest ideological successes.

In the broader discourse of government function, amalgamation, and big government evoke a spectrum of responses. They are sometimes seen as socialist for their centralizing tendencies and emphasis on uniform service provision across large areas, which can imply a redistribution of resources. Other times, they are viewed as capitalist, especially when these mergers are justified by the economic efficiencies they are purported to achieve, akin to corporate mergers in the private sector. However, these changes often occur within democratic frameworks where elected officials and public referendums play significant roles in decision-making, albeit the democratic process may feel diluted to the citizens of newly created mega-cities who experience a sense of remoteness from their governance structures.

Addressing the question posed by the theme of this blog, "All Lines Are Curves," it's sensible to consider whether there can indeed be "too much of a good thing" when it comes to government efficiency and size. While efficiency in governance is desirable, an overemphasis on it can lead to a reduction in the responsiveness and accountability of government to its citizens. As government grows larger, the risk of losing touch with the localized needs and nuances of its constituent communities increases. This can create a scenario where the government, in its quest to be efficient, becomes overly homogenized and insensitive to the diverse contexts it is supposed to serve.

Therefore, while some level of efficiency and cooperation in government is crucial, an unchecked expansion under the guise of these principles can lead to a diminishment of democratic engagement and the richness of localized governance. The challenge lies in balancing efficiency with other vital democratic values such as localism, responsiveness, transparency, and adaptability. This balance ensures that while government operates smoothly, it remains fundamentally connected to and directed by the needs of the people it serves, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of becoming 'too much of a good thing.'