Social democracy: together is better

In response to the capitalist ideologies of the conservatives and liberals, in 1971, Frank Scott wrote:

“From those condemned to labour

For profit of another

We take our new endeavour.

For sect and class and pattern

Through whom the strata harden

We sharpen now the weapon.

Till power is brought to pooling

And outcasts share in ruling

There will not be an ending

Nor any peace for spending” (Wiseman, 2007, p.569).

His words in this poem show how important he believed that social democracy would be in his society. Social democracy believes in “equality of condition, or at least the serious effort to reduce, as much as possible, major inequalities of wealth, income, social status and political influence…”(Mullaly, 2007, p.115). He believed as many social democratic thinkers, that as long as there are major inequalities and a capitalist society, that people will not be able to have their needs met. This inequality had major negative effects for people living in poverty, which this paradigm is tries to alleviate.

Social democracy is different from the other political paradigms in the sense that it understands the needs of people living in poverty. Mullaly (2007) mentions “[s]ocial problems, according to social democrats, are not the result of deviance, as the neo-conservatives believe, or of industrialization, as the liberals believe, but are a normal consequences of the way society is organized” (p.127). With this said, social democrats view humans as responsible social animals that are unable to realize their full potential due to capitalism (Mullaly, 2007, p.123).

Another benefit for those living in poverty is that social democracy actually provides an action plan for them and their needs. Mullaly (2007) “[s]ocial democrats would promote a variety of redistributive measures such as graduated or progressive tax systems, full employment policies, and well-developed social welfare programs” (p.122). Social democrats, such as the NDP in Canada, place a lot of importance on hiring more doctors and nurses, strengthening pensions, making more jobs, and helping the family with living costs. These all have direct benefits to people living in poverty. Creating more jobs and helping families with living costs can help by getting them further above the poverty line and even creating more jobs so they could enter the workforce or get a better paying job. It also helps people avoid going under the poverty line by strengthening pensions, which ensures that older adults have financial security after they retire, and having better healthcare makes sure less people are off work due to illness. This people-first approach shows people living in poverty are viewed as actual citizens and are treated with respect, compared to the stigma they encounter from other political parties.

As noted above, social democracy has major positive implications for those living in poverty. Not only does this paradigm have an action plan geared directly to those who need it the most, they also take proactive steps to ensure that this social problem does not affect others in the future. It also provides what this group of marginalized people need but do not get, which is respect. It provides all people with more chances to meet their needs, and saves them from being exploited for the profit of others. Social democrats view the well-being of all as a major priority for Canada, and work hard to make sure everyone has chances and gains in life, not only the top percentile groups on the income charts.

Leah

References

Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Wiseman, N., & Isitt, B. (2007). Social Democracy in Twentieth Century Canada: An

Interpretive Framework. Canadian journal of political science, 40(3), p.567-589.

Giving you a voice

http://www.ndp.ca/platform

Neo-liberalism: Equality for all.. to a certain extent

Neo-liberalism, similar to conservatism, is a paradigm that has many negative effects on people living in poverty. Mullaly (2007) mentions in his textbook, “[w]hereas conservatives subscribe to an absolute form of individualism, liberals, particularly reform liberals, subscribe to a modified version of individualism and/ or to a reluctant form of collectivism”(p.94). Although this marginalization does seem to exist under liberal ideals, it is noteworthy to acknowledge what measures have been put into place to relieve this social problem.

One similarity found between the neo-liberals and the conservatives is their view of individualism and government. Mahon (2008) mentions that neo-liberals are returning to mindset that the free-market and minimal government intervention are ideal in society.  She mentions “[p]rivatization, contracting out, and public–private partnerships form part of the neo-liberal toolkit” (p.344). This has negative implications for people living in poverty, due to the fact that privatization of interventions on poverty could mean that the needs of the people living in poverty would not be met. This is an issue due to a lot of the money that could be used to help feed and shelter those who require help will go to paying salaries of those in the company. This is an example of helping those higher in the class system and continuing to suppress those who need help the most.

            Although there are some similarities between the two paradigms, neo-liberalism does have several distinct advantages over neo-conservatism for those living in poverty. The main advantage of liberalism is the acceptance of the welfare state. Mullaly (2007) mentions that “[a] goal of the Canadian welfare state is described as being to provide a basic minimum to all Canadians” (p.111). This is a direct advantage to those living in poverty. In this sense, it is not based on the deserving and undeserving poor (Mullaly, 2007, p.86), and it does not critique the reasons as to why some people have less than others and require intervention. This goal provides all people with the necessities to eat and be sheltered, which are necessities not viewed as necessary intervention of the government by the conservatives.

            Another major difference between the two ideologies is their views on social problems. Although both ideologies view poverty as a personal problem, their reasons for this are very different. In the case of the neo-conservatives, they believe that a person encounters poverty because they are too lazy to work or are genetically inferior to those in the workforce, therefore poverty is a necessary punishment to correct this (Mullaly, 2007, p.79). In contrast, neo-liberals view poverty differently. “[E]veryone has access to education, the job market, health care, social services, and so on. If a person fails in society it is because he or she did not take advantage of available opportunities (Mullaly, 2007, p.98). Although this idea is still pessimistic in nature, they at least believe that services should be provided to those in need, instead of each providing their own.

                 Although the neo-liberals share some ideologies with the neo-conservatives, it is necessary to mention the major contributions they make to those living in poverty. Liberals do have a more positive view of humanity, and although they value individualism, they do not forget the importance of helping people in need, even if it is just to provide the minimum. They have also been the political party known for “establishing universal medicare, a good public pension system and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing equality of rights and responsibilities for all Canadians”, as mentioned by Ignatieff. Due to this, people living in poverty have been given more opportunities to be safe, healthy and be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

References

Mahon, R. (2008). Varieties of Liberalism: Canadian Social Policy from the ‘Golden Age’ to the

Present. Social policy & administration, 42(4), 342-361.

Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University   

Press.

http://www.liberal.ca/platform/

Neo-Conservatives: Responding to those in need

Before I decide to attack the current issues that are being selfishly avoided by the neo-conservatives, I thought it's only fair to look at some some of the founding principles of the conservative party that we are being led by these days.  One in particular seemed very interesting.  It is a belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion (Conservative Party, 2011).  If responding to poverty is by the means of locking poor people behind bars, then I think we have a problem.

Neo-conservatives hold a very strong belief in how society should be run and its policy on welfare and justice systems.  They hold a very sharp view of society and how it should be.  They also have strong views on poverty.  The main focal point of the society is individuals living within it.  People are responsible for their own making.  This dates back to the origins of this theory, where the emphasis was on traditional values and strong individualism.  Family, being the centre of society, is required to provide safety and welfare for its members.  It also makes sure that its members are competent enough to compete in the society.  Following the Darwinian thought that unfit parents will produce unfit children (Mullaly, 2007, p.83) gives the assumption and the neo-conservative belief that poverty like many other social problems, are a product of unfit, weak and deviant family structure.

So, if the people are responsible to maintain their own fortune, the government is not seen as a source of help to those affected by poverty.  In fact, the conservatives have been very inimical to the welfare state.  It’s seen as a structure that weakens the traditional sources of help.  With only the deserving poor, children, elderly and the disabled being seen as the ones in need, it leaves the other poor people in hopelessness and despair.  Social justice, to neo-conservatives is based on the belief in individual responsibility.  Every individual has a responsibility to look after him or herself.  When people do not carry out this responsibility, problems such as unemployment lack of resources and inadequate housing occur (Mullaly, 2007, p. 78).

This illustration presents the extreme of the neo-conservative thought although it is not too far-fetched.  I believe that little is being done to help those in poverty or those living with mental health problems.  Neo-conservative belief in tough law and order only encourages this reality.  The issue is not being addressed as it ought to.  That poverty is believed to have sprouted from the individuals, who are not capable to provide for themselves the basic needs of survival, is a typical argument that neo-conservative theory would support.  Poverty is not something that neo-conservatives see as being a social problem; rather it’s a problem that the individuals themselves are required to fix.  This view of poverty and their policy on such puts the blame on people living in it, rather than finding solutions to resolve it.  Poverty will never be demolished until we dig deeper within our society and tackle the fundamental factors that have allowed poverty to exist and flourish.

Medina

Refrences

Conservative Party Canada. (2011). Retrieved October 17, 2011, from http://www.conservative.ca/party/founding­_principles/

Mullaly R. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University  Press.

"Working Together Out of Poverty”

The grim reality posted in the recent liberal blog on the occasion of International Day for the Eradication of Poverty 2011, let me think about the concern of the liberals on the issue of poverty and try to find out how effective their policy is to solve this social problem.

The statistics in that blog  show that “one in seven Canadian children lives in low-income conditions – and that number goes up, way up, in First Nations and Inuit communities and among those new to our country”. It is really a challenging and in a way a embarrassing  factor for the so called rich countries like Canada. This fact is serious and it echoed the voice of Ban ki- moon, the Secretary General of UN in his speech on that very occasion:

Too many people are living in fear:
Fear of losing their jobs;
Fear of not being able to feed their families;
Fear of being trapped forever in poverty, deprived of the human right to live with health and dignity and hope for the future.
We can meet the challenges we face — the economic crisis, climate change, raising costs of food and energy, the effects of natural disasters.
We can overcome them by putting people at the centre of our work.

                                                                    Ban Ki- moon, UN Secretary General

The liberal ideology, that claims for the inclusive and prosperous Canada today, is the foundation of welfare state in the post-World War era that among other issues “seeks to reduce the excesses of inequality by using the power of the state to provide opportunities, such as public education, or health care, that would not be available to some people without government intervention” (Mullaly, p 92). They started different welfare programs to “compensate the victim of capitalism”. But was it sufficient enough for the eradication of poverty from the society?  And the answer is definitely NO as accepted by the liberals themselves in the above linked blog.

The federal Liberal Party of Canada has recently developed different policies like Liberal Family Care Plan, designed to help those caring for sick family members at home, and  the Liberal National Food Policy, which emphasizes the importance of providing healthy food to low-income children. But as a social worker I doubt, how far these policies will be effective in the time when we are advocating for the participatory democracy to address the issue from the level of people who are the direct concern of the subject rather than the representative democracy that the liberals are applauding for.Coulter (2009) finds the provincial liberal government of Ontario using poverty as a lip service to the humanity and just as a mode of governance to contrast their approach with the conservatives (p 40).

My concern is, liberals have paved the way for the betterment of Canadian society through their policies and plans for more than a half century but are they revising themselves accordingly and "putting people at the center of work" as Moon mentioned above or it is time to get replaced by other ideologies as seen in federal election 2011. Sandwell (2003) is concerned to the same sorts of aspects beyond the narratives of individualism and social minimum that the liberals are unwilling to forward with (p 452). 

Subas

References:

Coulter, K. (2009). Women, poverty policy, and production of neoliberal policies in Ontario, Canada. Journal of women politics and policy, vol 30, 23-45.
Liberal blog (2011). Working together out of poverty. Retrieved October 18, 2011 from www.liberal.ca
Moon B.K. (2011). A speech on the international day for the eradication of poverty. Retrieved October 18, 2011 from www.un.org./www.youtube.com
Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press
Sandwell, R. W. (2003). The limits of liberalism:The liberal reconnaissance and history of the family in Canada. Canadian Historical Review, 84,423-453.

Neo-Conservatism: Here for Canada

While doing research on the neo-conservative view of poverty, I was getting discouraged by the lack of results from typing in “neo-conservatism and poverty” into Google. After several attempts and hard feelings towards Google, I decided to go another way and research the views of neo-conservatism in general. After looking at some sites and recent interviews from the conservative party, I realized that it wasn’t in fact Google’s fault; it was that poverty is not a topic that is addressed by the conservatives!

                In April of this year, Stephen Harper labelled the conservative policy platform as “Here for Canada”.  As Mullaly (2007) mentions in his textbook, “[t]he central social values of neo-conservatism are freedom or liberty, individualism, and inequality” (p.79). This could not have been more apparent than in this speech! Harper’s plan of action for the conservative government was based on keeping people in the labour force, supporting families, making the streets safe, and of course on balancing the budget. In a perfect world, yes, it would be great to have more jobs and offer training and low taxes to improve human capital of those in the workforce. Yes, it would be wonderful if all families followed the nuclear prototype and they were given a tax cut, and of course we all wish we could leave our doors unlocked and not be afraid to walk down the street in the middle of the night. Yes, in a perfect world these would be high priorities. But what about those who aren’t in the workforce and can’t be, those who don’t follow the nuclear family form, or those who rely on government relief to eat and stay alive?

                The major fault of neo-conservatism is their social Darwinian approach to society (Mullaly, 2007, p.80).  The neo-conservatives follow an ideology that there is a deserving and undeserving poor (p.86). They believe that the only people that deserve to be on social assistance are those who are old, have disabilities or are orphan children, and believe anyone else who is able-bodied should be able to support themselves. Neo-conservatives fail to take into account human differences and accept that not everyone is given the same chances in life. Harper mentioned in the policy platform, “We’re taking action on the priorities of Canadians who work hard and play by the rules, and we’ve steered our country through the worst global economic recession since the 1930s”. He follows the neo-conservative belief that people are poor based on their own dispositions, and that it is not fair to the people in the labour force to have to pay for their mistakes (Mullaly, 2007, p.83).

This way of government will have negative effects if implemented in our society. Poverty is a social problem that has been addressed with the welfare system to ensure the well-being of all people. If this is taken out of power with the sole benefit of having fewer taxes and more opportunities for the working classes, then the problem of poverty will spiral out of control. There would be more crime, with people having no other resources to provide for themselves or their family, and it would not give the people who are temporarily out of the workforce resources to re-enter and be contributing members.  It also would fail to provide support necessary to those who do not have the ability to be in the workforce, such as people with disabilities and the elderly. This in turn would also negatively affect those in the workforce, by now having the burden of being the sole financial support to dependent family or friends.

It is apparent after looking at Harper’s view of poverty why nothing came up in Google. Neo-conservatives do not view it as a priority or something that needs to be addressed, due to their belief that poverty is an incentive for the lazy and unfit to enter the workforce (Mullaly, 2007, p.79). Therefore, it makes me wonder what he means by being “here for Canada”. Being here for Canada would not be to turn away those in need, but to give them safety and resources that they need. It would be to create more jobs, but to also make programs to help implement those who can work but have not yet entered the workforce. Being here for Canada would also be taking a proactive stance in crime prevention, not make the problem worse by forcing people to find survival strategies. Although Harper’s beliefs would be beneficial in a perfect world where everyone had equal opportunities, neo-conservatism fails to be here for all of Canada. Instead they are only here for those who need it the least.

Leah

References

Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

http://www.conservative.ca/policy/platform_2011/

Neo-conservatism in the Eyes of Homeless People

  As I went through a couple of articles, and for sure the text book itself, I got to know that the neo-conservatives are not seriously concerned about the poverty issues like homeless situation as a major social problem to be addressed right away. This view is a direct contradiction against the notion of welfare state that continues the disparity among the people in a society. As a social worker, I can’t agree with them and I see that poverty is a social challenge that affects both the poor and the rest.

For neo-conservatives homelessness is purely a personal problem that “there is no social problem, only personal problem that occur when individuals do not look after themselves” (Mullaly, 2007). In a society where people are motivated by profit and power, they are only concerned to their own life and they have no interest to look for others.  As a result, the privileged classes keep on enjoying their supremacy whereas the poor people have to suffer from a number of problems like the shortage of food, lack of proper humanly shelter, and other necessities and rights in the society. Effective government intervention is necessary to address such inequality and to provide social justice to everybody through different welfare programs but the neo-conservatives find it a reverse discrimination and instead continue to praise poverty as a good thing which teaches discipline and provides incentives (Mullaly, 2007). When I am observing this all from the eyes of homeless people of Canada, I find it in a sense a nonsense ideology without having responsibility to its people.

There are thousands of homeless people in Canada who are bound to live the life of beggars, staying in shelter homes, sleeping under the bridge and bus parks, compelled to get addicted and involve in criminal activities, and suffering from physical, mental and emotional problems. This number is growing significantly in the major cities like Vancouver and “unless an urgent action was taken, the number of homeless in the region will easily exceed the 5000 athletes and officials expected to participate in the 2010 Winter Olympics” (Collins, 2010, p.944).
                          The homeless people in Vancouver taking drugs

These people are getting vulnerable in every day or so. National Council of Welfare indicates homelessness as a big problem adopting a high-cost response to the government (National Council of Welfare, 2011). But the neo-conservatives are pretending to be blind to this very fact because they are sceptical to social change and prefer to maintain status quo in every aspects which sounds unpractical and stupid in many senses. They are too cynics when they view poverty as the cause of individual weakness rather than that of socio-cultural and economic factor. How can the welfare program be hostile to social justice? Is homelessness entirely an individual issue that the government has nothing to do with it? What is the meaning of government to those people who have to live all their life “outside of home”?

In this way, I find the neo-conservative ideology as a cheap dogma of affluent elites who do not want to change the existing social scene by the fear of losing their privileges. They lack vision to see the holistic effect of homelessness in the national and international economy that is questioning their own identity. In today’s world, it is almost impossible to think about a  government having no welfare program to help uplift the precarious livelihood of homeless people to an equal height and that is why there are many social policies being formulated, research getting done, media and civil society advocating for the marginalized people and the pressure on  the government and so on to addresses the issue of homelessness.

References:

Collins, D. (2010). Homelessness in Canada and Newzeland. Urban Geography, vol 31, 932—952.

Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

National Council of Welfare. (2011). The dollars and the sense of solving poverty. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from www.ncw.gc.ca/l. 3bd.2t.1ilshtml@- eng.jsp?lid=433&fid=2 #link15

Subas Dahal