Rethinking Governance: Insights from a Cross-Generational Conversation

Essay: Across the Generations with Donald G. Evans. Governance is not merely a mechanism of control; at its core, it’s a moral endeavor.

Editorial Notes | This essay is part of an ongoing series of conversations with the prolific Don Evans, offering insights into his work and enduring impact on criminal justice, peer support, and systemic change. In October 2024, I met Don in Toronto for an illuminating discussion that forms the basis of this essay. Our conversation spanned generational perspectives: Don’s decades of leadership in probation, public policy, and care ethics, and my own reflections shaped by academic and professional engagement with systemic challenges.

Together, we explored the moral dimensions of governance, the socio-political realities of public safety, and the challenges posed by reactive systems. Some excerpts have been revised for narrative clarity, but all remain true to the context of our dialogue.

Your Peer,

Micheal P. Taylor
Founder, Frontline Peer
www.frontlinepeer.com

---

Rethinking Governance: Why Governance Needs Morality

Governance is more than a mechanism of control. At its core, it should be a moral endeavor, balancing the power to act with the wisdom to act justly. As Zygmunt Bauman observed, politics concerns knowing what to do, while power represents the capacity to do it. Governance exists at the intersection of these forces, but all too often, it prioritizes efficiency and control over morality and engagement.

In our conversation, Don and I reflected on the evolution of governance in public safety, tracing a shift from community-centered approaches to surveillance-driven models. This transformation, we agreed, has left gaps in the system, undermining trust and human dignity. To address these challenges, governance must reclaim its moral foundation.

The State of Public Safety: From Community to Surveillance

Public safety once emphasized relationships and community connections. Don described his early days in probation, where officers worked closely with local leaders and clergy. “There was an older group of men who were much more community-connected,” he recalled. These relationships were central to building trust and fostering rehabilitation.

Over the years, this human-centered approach gave way to professionalized, mechanized systems. In his 1974 essay, Computerized Crime Control or Community Control of Crime, Don warned of the risks posed by technocratic governance. Today, those predictions have come to fruition, with surveillance technologies dominating probation and public safety work.

“Mass supervision in the community, without a clear purpose beyond simply tracking and knowing clients’ whereabouts,” Don remarked, highlighting the superficial nature of client interactions with ‘supervisors’ rather than in a relationship with human service providers. This shift in technocracy prioritizes surveillance over meaningful engagement, reducing individuals to data points rather than addressing their unique needs and potential.

Morality and the Force of Law

Central to our discussion was the idea that governance has divorced morality from law. “The only way we have to use control is law, since we seem to divorce morality from law,” Don noted. This separation leads to systems that enforce rules without considering the ethical principles behind them.

One consequence is the erosion of the therapeutic alliance—the relationship between probation officers and clients. This alliance, once the cornerstone of rehabilitation, has been overshadowed by administrative tasks and surveillance. Officers now spend more time at their desks than in the field, managing cases rather than building trust.

We agreed that effective governance must reintegrate morality into its systems. Laws alone cannot address the root causes of crime or foster meaningful change; they must be guided by ethical considerations that prioritize human dignity and well-being.

Language, Truth, and Public Discontent

Language plays a critical role in shaping governance and public trust. Don expressed concern about how political discourse has weaponized language, distorting truth and fueling public discontent. “What I get more concerned about is the linguistic side of it all... and how it’s been weaponized in the political arena,” he said.

This manipulation creates frustration rather than informed dissent. Words like “rehabilitation” have lost their meaning, replaced by metrics and jargon that prioritize control over care. The public, alienated by this rhetoric, becomes disillusioned with popular governance, seeking reactionary solutions rather than transformative change.

Economic Control and Social Mobility

Our conversation also touched on the economic dimensions of governance. Don described economic disparity as a deliberate form of social control: “Disparity in wages, disparity in taxes... is a form of social control.” These inequalities, he argued, reinforce existing power structures, limiting social mobility and perpetuating systemic inequities.

Governments often respond reactively to crises rather than addressing their root causes. “I have a hard time finding a lot of proactivity… For one thing, they don’t have the capital,” Don observed. This reactive stance exacerbates instability, prioritizing short-term solutions over long-term strategies for equity and inclusion.

Towards Morally Informed Governance

What would it take to create governance systems grounded in morality? Don emphasized the need to recover “a sense of humanity” in governance, balancing technological capabilities with ethical principles. This approach requires viewing individuals not as problems to be managed but as people with dignity and potential.

Don’s career-long advocacy for the therapeutic alliance offers a blueprint for this vision. By fostering relationships and trust, governance can move beyond reactive measures, addressing the root causes of crime and inequity while promoting rehabilitation and growth.

Conclusion: A Call for Balance

Our dialogue revealed the importance of balancing tradition and innovation, morality and efficiency. Governance must reclaim its moral foundation while embracing the tools and technologies of the modern age. This balance is essential to fostering systems that are both effective and just.

Governance, as Don put it, is a negotiation between the capacity to act and the wisdom to act well. By prioritizing morality, engagement, and equity, we can create systems that empower individuals and communities rather than control them.

Join the Conversation

We want to hear from you. How do these themes resonate with your experiences or observations? What roles do morality and proactive engagement play in your vision of effective governance?

Consider scheduling a discovery call with Mike to share your story, observation, or concern. At Frontline Peer, we value diverse perspectives—whether from service users, care providers, or students of criminal justice and public policy. Together, we can build meaningful, ethical solutions to today’s challenges.