Planning for Disaster

As the various investigations continue, there has been an incredible amount of hyperbole and partisan axe grinding regarding the federal government’s Sponsorship Program. While the magnitude of the monies involved certainly demand our attention and concern, this is not the first time that a well intended government concept or plan resulted in disaster.  

Over thirty years ago, an American political scientist by the name of Irving Janis was reading the insider accounts of the decision-making process that led the administration of John F. Kennedy to support the disastrous invasion of Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs. The men involved in this process were supposedly “the Best and the Brightest” of American society, each known for their intelligence, achievement and judgement. Yet together, they were responsible for one of the low points of American foreign policy. Janis was rightly curious as to how these talented individuals could create such a major crisis within the first three months of the Kennedy presidency.

Although the handling of the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis redeemed their reputations, a few years later many of these same individuals were advising President Johnston on American military intervention in Vietnam. As Janis began investigating further, he found similar situations regarding American military planning prior to Pearl Harbour and during the Korean War – situations that involved none of the individuals involved in the prior two examples. The process, however, of a tightly-knit and highly motivated group of individuals pursuing high stakes goals was remarkably the same. His research into this area yielded the term groupthink, which he describes as “a mode of thinking…when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” Further, Janis states that “the more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink.” In the pressure-cooker of this process, individual members suppress their own doubts, discount the doubts of others, develop feelings of invulnerability and operate under an illusion of group consensus. Loyalty and belonging to the group inadvertently becomes the focus of their activities and the original policy goals of the group often become lost or obscured.

In the lead up to the vote in 1995 Quebec Referendum and in the months afterward, there was a strong outcry across the country that the federal government had to do something, do anything, to avert the potential break-up of the country. Many of the loudest calls for this “do what it takes” approach came from the opposition parties, columnists and the pundits. Certainly, a narrow victory for federalism in Quebec required that action be taken.

In response, the federal government passed The Clarity Act, the controversial legislation setting out a federal government mandate in secession referenda, and provided a veto on constitutional change to the five regions of Canada (which evolved to a requirement for near unanimity among the provinces) among other structural changes in the operation of the federation. As well, the Canada Information Office, later Communication Canada, was created to increase the presence of Canada among the people of Quebec and, hopefully, increase their attachment to the country. It is, of course, the actions of Communication Canada, specifically the Sponsorship Program, that have recently become the focus of so much political and media attention.

As the examples cited above suggest, those involved with the operation and execution of the Sponsorship Program succumbed to groupthink. No doubt they thought that they were motivated by the highest goals, the unity of the country, but they became blind to their responsibility to ensure that the money set aside for the promotion of Canada in Quebec was effectively used and that value would be received for the funds spent. Their approach to “saving Canada at any cost” was not what was intended by the Sponsorship Program.

As we consider the actions of these individuals and the commentary of the Auditor General, it is important to point out that many Canadians across the country agree with the need to promote Canada within Quebec (and elsewhere in the country). While there are those who believe that government should not be using taxpayer money for advertising or public education programs, and this view has surfaced as part of the critique of the current government on this issue, there are many others who believe that governments have an obligation to inform citizens of its actions and services and that the federal government has a responsibility to promote attachment to, and identification with, our country.

The better judgement of the individuals involved in the execution of this program became victim to the “SWAT Team” mentality that is sadly typical of groupthink. An overwhelming loyalty to the group, combined with feelings of invulnerability and a heightened need to “do or die”, results in unaccountability and irresponsibility. This is not only true with regard to the way that groupthinkers manage their affairs, but also to their obligation to their superiors in the public service. They were operating under a misapprehension of their duty, much like the four knights who interpreted King Henry’s rhetorical complaint “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” as direct orders to assassinate Archbishop Thomas of Canterbury. They thought they were following the commands of the King, but the result of their ill-considered action caused great turmoil within their country and almost cost Henry his crown.

While the current situation regarding the Sponsorship Program holds a mirror up to some of these past events, we need to be reminded that governments, regardless of how well organized or supervised they are, are composed of human beings, with all their strengths and weaknesses. Like all those who are affected by their actions, those involved are also victims of groupthink.

- 30 -

Originally published in The Winnipeg Free Press