Municipal Horizons Part 7: Election Hangover / Some Particulars
Original Kitchener, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada - November 4, 2022
(Municipal) Election Hangover
It’s been almost two weeks since the municipal election. At the beginning of this sequence of posts, I proposed doing what we can to ensure the best possible result with the time, resources and structures currently available, and while we’re at it, also think about what we could do better next time around, when we will have had four full years to get ready.
These posts have emphasized an integral view of our democracy in all dimensions, municipal, provincial and federal. What I’ve been imagining is an omni-partisan movement, grounded in the actual places where we live, learn, work and associate, dedicated to achieving a better balance between the spheres of Canadian democracy.
The most telling result of Decision ‘22 is the dismal turnout: barely 20% of those who were eligible bothered to vote in my city, Kitchener. That’s a shame, a pity and a warning: the measure of how things function in the municipal sphere is a vital sign for democracy in Canada as a whole, and with a 79.8% failure to function rate in its various organs and parts, this body politic is in serious to critical condition.
I reassure myself by keeping in mind that at least a larger proportion of us turned out to vote in my city than the 17.8% of the electorate who gave the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario a whopping majority of seats in June, and consequently, near total control of our towns, cities, highways, byways, skies, lands, waters, wildlife, conservation areas, schools, police services, hospitals, colleges, universities. Again, if we’re looking at vital signs, this is cause for alarm.
The Liberal Party of Canada did slightly better in 2021, when 20.4% of the electorate proved sufficient to give them a mandate to govern from sea to sea to sea, albeit with only a plurality of seats. It’s when you look more closely at the municipal results that things start to look really scary. In Kitchener’s Ward 3, for instance, the turnout was 15.2% of eligible voters, and 532 votes were enough to elect a new city councillor to represent the people of this ward for the next four years -- a mere 4.2% of the electorate.
Apathy is not the main problem here, in fact, in some ways it is a saving grace for Canada’s political order. Imagine if masses of people started caring about what happens in federal, provincial and municipal elections who don’t have faith in fair, open elections; who think government itself is a problem; who long for power over others or to be subservient to the powerful; who believe that Canada is essentially a white, Christian, patriarchal dominion, or who believe that the Creator gave some human beings the right, the freedom and the power to plunder and devour the wondrous works of creation in any way they see fit, provided what is being exploited is their property.
It could just as easily be a significant number of people who believe that property as we know it is theft; who long for, or want to become, a revolutionary vanguard in tune with self-evident truth dedicated to setting the whole world straight; or who think white folks represent a modern, secular kind of demonic presence; or who find hope in the prospect of a final battle between right and wrong, or people who imagine the entire human race as a kind of invasive species that has infected the planet.
When combinations of 20.2%, 17.8% or 4.2% of the voting public can elect a city councillor, an entire council with a mayor or chair, or a government with near total control over a province that includes almost 40% of all Canadians, it leaves our democracy vulnerable to a panoply of nightmarish scenarios. A malevolent insurgency could assert itself in many ways, including through one of Canada’s mainstream political parties, none of which include even 1% of the public as voting members.
Mobile billboard circulating in Tampa Florida sponsored by the Democratic National Committee
The only effective protection against such dangers is the active engagement of good-hearted citizens, not just with our elected governments but with the entire civil order. To stay vital, a democracy has to be exercised, practiced, lived, day after day after day. I’ve contended that it can only be lived in place, on the ground, each in our own corner of the world, guided by our own particular lights. Beyond that, it is either an abstraction or an imposition.
Some Particulars
As for those relatively simple procedural matters that have come up during the campaign, like whether there should be term limits for municipal political office holders, or stricter residence rules, or a ban on campaign contributions from developers, or regulating election signage, I stand by my original preference for leaving the decision to the voters whenever possible. Rather than tinker with the system, we’d do better to look at the culture of local democracy -- the customs, common practices, infrastructure -- rather than structural flaws, at least until the province as master, creator and overlord allows us to decide such matters for ourselves.
Some saw U.S.-style culture war patterns emerging, especially in relation to school board trustee positions. It was a relief to see results that indicate such malignant forces have generally been held at bay. Some may disagree, but I don’t think anything resembling the MAGA Republican mindset played a significant role in the dramatic upsets in Wilmot and Cambridge. Although I have the highest regard for many of the incumbents who were not re-elected, I’m not deeply alarmed by the outcome. Always on the lookout for anything that might be grounds for a glimmer of hope, I’m encouraged that the results show, certainly in Cambridge and to some extent in Wilmot, how heritage-related concerns should not be totally ignored, as they generally are in almost all jurisdictions.
I’ve proposed that we start thinking of an election as a collective deliberation process, rather than a contest between competing views and interests that is ultimately decided by each of us alone, in private. Collective deliberation requires clear channels of communication, and a culture of fairness, respect, honesty and shared understanding. An election has a definitive outcome, but the deliberation is ongoing. Day in, day out, a critical factor is the current and future state of what might be called the local/regional news, stories, knowledge, information, learning, ideas and deliberation ecosystem. There is limitless opportunity in this field for purposeful endeavour, including creative adaptation, experimentation and innovation, as well as for supporting and making the best possible use of resources that are currently available.
Next time, let’s make more of an effort to encourage good people to stand for election. Let’s submit nominations with hundreds or even thousands of signatures rather than the 25 or so required. Let’s not wait for people to decide to run, but be proactive, and encourage a willingness to serve while allowing ample time -- a year, maybe more -- to get organized. And when all is said and done, let’s stand by the people we worked for and voted for, even if they come in second or third in the final tally. Anyone and everyone who demonstrates outstanding dedication to public service, ability and good will during the election campaign should be inundated with offers for employment, paid and unpaid, to serve the public good immediately after the results are finalized.
I’ve said repeatedly that I’d like to see a process through which those of us who care about the cities, towns, villages and neighbourhoods we’re part of would work towards reaching consensus, or at least a general understanding around important issues. That includes the question of whether or not an incumbent deserves another term in office, and if not, who would be the best possible person to replace them.
To begin with, the groups that organize questionnaires and candidate forums during the campaign could make an effort to evaluate, as fairly and dispassionately as possible, with reference to voting and speaking records on relevant issues, the performance of elected representatives. This should be done well before the deadline for nominations. I’m imagining something formulaic and consistent, like the Mclean’s education rankings, but for a more worthy purpose than trying to impose something resembling the deeply entrenched caste system that characterizes higher education in the U.S. on our more egalitarian and less monolithic Canadian social, cultural and civic order.
Endorsements from trusted sources can be very helpful for responsible voting, especially when there are no political parties to rely on to help marshal decision making. At some point, preferably before advance polls start to open, there could be an effort to reach agreement on the best choice by civic service and engagement groups of various kinds. This includes citizens who care about the arts, citizens who care about heritage, citizens who care about our schools, our health care system, public transit, public safety, along with citizens who care about social justice or the vitality of local democracy. The most fundamental concern is the environment — the land, the waters, the air. And then there are those citizens engaged in the most difficult work of all: efforts to address, at long last, the unfathomable historical wrongs that are woven into the very fabric of life in Canada, the United States, the continent, the hemisphere.
None of these concerns is intrinsically at odds with any other. Part of the aim would be to build alliances, including groups that are sometimes perceived to be at odds: Heritage advocates, for instance, are routinely dismissed as privileged NIMBY obstructionists, or even worse. But there is an inherent harmony between cultural heritage conservation and the protection of our natural heritage. “The greenest building is the one that is already built” is a corollary of the concept of a circular economy.
“Community Beauty is a Civic Duty,” the motto of the venerable (150 years!) Kitchener Horticultural Society, also comes to mind. On first glance, it might come across as frivolous in the context of a discussion about the future of Canada as a democracy. But it resonates with the classic slogan of the women’s suffrage and labour rights movements: "bread for all, and roses too." And I ask you, is there anything in the entire cultural inheritance of the human race that more eloquently and movingly reveals the meaning and function of community beauty than the legacy of cultural works, tangible and intangible, created by the people of the Indigenous nations and the African diaspora in these “new world” settlements of ours over the course of what are now more than five centuries of conquest, displacement, oppression and erasure?
Allies don’t have to be of a single mind. So over the next four years, let’s look for commonalities, and when differences arise, reconcile, rather than settle for surrender, compromise or partition.
I've been thinking about the idea of evaluating elected officials in regards to their stated priorities, but have been uncertain about the best process. Perhaps you suggestion of groups with candidate surveys may be the most logical place to begin.