To be read on VRT NWS on Thursday: “In his speech, Bert Engelaar (ABVV) took a striking swipe at the government’s migration policy. Even though it was not the main theme of the demonstration.
"If those in power can choose when rules count and when they do not, then we are heading for dangerous situations.”
Engelaar is referring here to Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt, who is calmly ignoring the ruling of the Constitutional Court on ‘her’ halt to reception. But it does not stop with migration or at our national borders. Both in Belgium and beyond, the judiciary condemns policies or decisions, and the government’s response? We’ll just do it anyway.
In theory, of course, that cannot and must not be allowed, but in practice we have a problem. If we ignore the law, sanctions follow. Fines, bailiffs and ultimately the police. But that enforcement is an instrument of the government. With its monopoly on violence, it does not seem inclined to force itself. That jars, because the rule of law presupposes that everyone is subject to the law, including the government itself.
I don’t need to spell out what consequences that ‘lawlessness’ on the part of the government has, but unreliable is certainly a very apt word. It reminds me a little of the time of L’état, c’est moi. Okay, divinely granted power, we are not there yet. But ego and arbitrariness? Definitely.
No kings
Internationally, Trump is a good example of an unreliable leader who places himself above the law. Although he has now been reined in over his import tariffs. There we already discover a first exception to the government doing whatever it wants: when there is pressure from the wealthy class, it does seem to obey after all. That is not reassuring; when law and money go hand in hand, they quickly leave the public interest behind. Read the protest signs from the No Kings demonstration in the US, and you immediately see who the victim of arbitrariness is.
When it comes to vulnerable target groups in our little country, the government has been ignoring court rulings for years. But arbitrariness has also increased in the awarding of subsidies. Organization X supports homeless people and people with addiction problems. In October, it is told that government support will continue next year, only to receive an email two months later saying that the tap is being turned off immediately. Not conducive to the relationship with local politicians or to the healthy functioning of your organization.
It is also not immediately clear how you can protect yourself against this, because the rules of the game are opaque. The criteria you have to meet in order to receive subsidies have become less clear year after year. We have evolved from a clear framework to subjective decisions by ministers. No experts, no committees and no rules of the game. Just a boss pointing his thumb up or down based on personal preference? Or unfounded suspicions of terrorism? Or gain? And even if you receive subsidies, it is not clear for how long.
Calling into The Void
Another way in which the government is showing itself to be increasingly less reliable is in its relationship with the trade unions. That is why Engelaar’s statement is so well placed. Social consultation as it was thirty years ago, the government playing a mediating role between employer and employee, demonstrations that move the needle—it all sounds almost naïve today. If anyone wonders whether the union has become toothless, or whether protesting still achieves anything, then I refer, as every politician does nowadays, to the primacy of politics. Our actions and concerns are essentially simply ignored.
I do not want to take the analogy with parenthood too far, but name me one kind of relationship in which ignoring concerns is a good idea. Should we therefore start honking on about fascism or claim that we have ended up in a dictatorship? No. Or at least not yet. And that is a very important nuance for organizations looking for a way to relate to this government with its grandiose arrogance. “We will no longer accept money from such a government.”: that is an understandable, but in my view too categorical, response.
The government is not 100% unreliable, we still pay tax money that has to go somewhere, and for many organizations it is simply over and done with without subsidies. And then it is above all the end user, your target group, who becomes the victim of this principled rejection. Without subsidies, the cost of your support goes up, your target group changes, and you become elitist. Believe me, if principles take over from pragmatism, we will lose the fight before it even breaks out; as an organization, you will be undermining yourself.
Arbitrariness has its advantages
The rise of unreliability is also a bit of good news, because arbitrariness can also turn out positively. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of it. But we must dare to turn a precarious situation to our advantage. And what better way to do that than through emotion? Because they may disregard the law, but a critical tweet keeps politicians awake all night.
Politics takes reputation more into account than legislation or good practice, and you have to respond to that. Don’t invest only in legal assistance, but also in communication, storytelling and PR. Occupy the space left open by the primacy of politics through its subjective outliers and play shamelessly on feelings. Whoever controls the story controls the outcome. Feels a bit dirty? Was it never the intention to lapse into Mad Men practices? Slippery slope, anyone? I understand that. That is why it is important to know where the line is.
What is the best way to deal with the dangers hidden behind “the end justifies the means”? Just as with unreliable people. You determine your boundaries very carefully in advance and guard them at all times. If you receive grants, there is always a price to pay: you are carrying out a task for the government. That is why you must determine very clearly what your non-negotiables are, which conditions are unacceptable, which costs undermine your mission, and certainly have an exit strategy ready. At a certain point, working for a repressive government makes you complicit.
Fuck quality
For the time being, then, there is little point in expecting certainty. Few organizations will be 100% certain of their resources over the next 5 or 10 years. That also calls for operational and strategic adjustments. One obvious difference is the horizon on which you build your strategy. Throw those rigid ten-year plans in the trash. It’s time to work with scenarios: that way, you’re better prepared for whatever the world serves up.
Also ask yourself in good time whether something needs to happen and whether something needs to be done well. If you ask me, we lose a lot of time and miss out on an incredible amount of support from volunteers simply because every last detail has to be just right. These times require us to settle for less than perfection. Things have to move forward, they have to happen, we have to keep going. Granted, making that switch, from as good as possible to good enough, takes courage. But we can do it.
You also have to dare to rethink your workforce, because unpredictability calls for flexibility. You can’t hire people or let them go with every hiccup from the government. Choose a short-term strategy and have it carried out by a core team of employees, supplemented by talented freelancers and volunteers. Task-oriented support can even bring extra breathing space, insights and energy into your organization as a positive side effect. And who knows, maybe Purpose Crew can provide you with the perfect match?
No dictatorship
Our government is proving to be increasingly unreliable, unpredictable, and deaf to our concerns. That is problematic, but it is not doomed to end in a dictatorship. And as long as we are not there, it is best if we do not all leave the room.
So: determine the point at which cooperation with the government becomes unacceptable on principle, and be creative with the space you still have left. Play on emotion and dare to target their reputation. Be flexible, both in strategy and organizational chart, learn to think in scenarios, and do not forget that whoever tells the best story controls the narrative.
Yes, we are evolving toward a less reliable government. But know that evolutions do not necessarily proceed in a straight line. You really do not need to give up on the government yet or dismiss it categorically.
Rather ask yourself:
- What do we do in the event that x, y, or z happens?
- What do we do with our staff?
- What do we do with unpaid workers?
- What do we do tomorrow that strengthens our mission?
- And how do we make sure it remains enjoyable?
Because the struggle is, by definition, endless. It should at least be fun along the way.
