The Greater Good
We live in a democracy whereby the majority has the power to make decisions that are binding upon the whole.
What we sometimes forget is that it is a constitutional democracy with majority rule and minority rights. People agree to abide by decisions of the majority, but there are effective protections for the rights of minorities. Protection of minority rights assures the legitimacy of government.
But is that good enough? It creates a combative relationship where one side rules and the other side has to assert its rights to ensure protections.
The truth is that when we create systems that provide for a majority we are also often creating systems that disadvantage or even harm the minority. When we serve a greater good we say things like “the benefit outweighs the risk” and we lament or ignore the people who unfortunately “fall through the cracks.”
As an example, rural communities rarely benefit from “greater good” policy development simply because of our small populations. Urban priorities most often become the country’s priorities. So, how well are we really represented in a majority rule system? How do we ensure that policy provides for all people when fairness isn’t sameness and a policy designed to support a dense urban centre actually hurts small rural communities.
When remote learning was mandated in 2020, cities were equipped with the digital infrastructure to support it but many rural communities were not. Providing universally equitable public education was not possible and yet we mandated policy that created a distinct two-tier system for the “greater good”.
How do we ensure that everyone is being served?
2 Policy System
What if we had a 2 policy system where every “greater good” policy is paired with a second policy designed to prevent harm to the minority? The second policy may be an entirely different solution but one that serves the needs of the people not supported by the first policy.
Policy A: Greater Good
Policy B: Do No Harm
Who is the policy serving? Who is it not serving? How will people benefit from it? How will people be disadvantaged by it? What potential harm could result? What kind of accommodations or alternate arrangements could be made to ensure that no-one is harmed?
To do no harm means stepping back to look at the broader context. It acknowledges that fairness is not always achieved with the same solutions. And, it forces leaders to thoroughly consider the repercussions of their decisions.
It changes the rationale from “the benefit outweighs the risk” to “no loss is acceptable if it is preventable.”
It may take longer and cost more but in our effort to serve ALL people it’s possible to honour the spirit and intention of constitutional democracy and ensure (from the beginning) that no one is left behind.
