Municipal Horizons Part 3: An Omni-Partisan Approach
see also:
Municipal Horizons Part 1: Towards a Balanced Order
Municipal Horizons Part 2: Connect, Converse, Organize, Do Things
I’ve been imagining a movement dedicated to making improvements in how we practice our democracy day by day, starting with an emphasis on achieving a better balance between the various spheres of Canadian democracy. I’m interested mainly in the role we play as active citizens, individually and collectively, within the various bodies politic we inhabit and constitute.
We can also work towards reforming the system, with measures such as term limits, a ranked ballot system, proportional representation from the various factions, or recall and referenda procedures. Personally, I’d like to see more attention to the question of what a constituency is, could be and should be. Representation by population makes sense as a fundamental principle, but I’m not sure the rule that every ward, riding or electoral district has to be more or less the same size is serving us well.
Possible adjustments to the system are always worth discussing, but meanwhile, we have to work with things as they are. And meanwhile means indefinitely: We know that nothing is likely to change for at least another four years on the provincial front, and that federal authority as currently arranged is powerless in the municipal sphere. The province has made it illegal for cities to consider even a minor change like a ranked ballot in municipal elections. Barring a miraculous change of direction, as long as this administration is in power we’ll have to make do with the structures and attitudes that exist, including the cultures and rituals of local democracy that are familiar to us.
Over the years, I’ve volunteered to help during many election campaigns, usually not for a specific candidate or party, but in the deliberation process: a debate, a town hall, an all-candidates meeting, an exchange, a questionnaire, as organized by my neighbourhood association, the Waterloo Regional Arts Council, the Social Planning Council/Social Development Centre Waterloo Region, The Working Centre, THEMUSEUM and, most recently, a consortium of environmental groups.
This list of involvements touches on a pretty wide range of things people care about: arts, culture, heritage, beautification, the environment, local democracy, local enterprise, equity, inclusion, relief of poverty, housing, employment, health, well-being, belonging, education, peace, order, security, freedom, opportunity.
Since the purpose is to find practical ways to work in concert, including deliberation and seeking consensus on who to vote for, it’s best to try to avoid prioritization among issues and concerns. Every one of these causes matters, and there isn’t one that is inherently at odds with another. The movement I’m imagining seeks, and facilitates, a convergence among causes, so that efforts made in any one area work harmoniously with all the others. Done right, it allows each of us to work in our own particular corner, according to our own lights.
It is better to avoid, whenever possible, any tendency towards narrowing down what warrants attention in the deliberation process, especially the pitfalls of binary, either/or, pro or con, yes or no confrontations. Personally, I’ve sworn off debating altogether. The road to effective decision making is through embracing complexity and broadening considerations, but without going too far beyond what is presently achievable. The purpose is to find practical ways to make improvements by building on what exists, and to make the best possible use of every asset and resource actually, immediately and rightfully available.
There probably needs to be some basic agreement on who we are prepared to communicate and work with. Since we’re talking about balancing the political order, this is really not a place for anyone who thinks that government itself is the problem. Conversely, since we’re talking about civic engagement, the movement I’m imagining is also not a place for those who think that government is always the answer. We’re talking about taking action, actually doing things, not about getting out of the way and letting an invisible hand hold sway, nor about yielding to the powers that be, governmental, corporate and institutional, or handing responsibility over to experts in macro-economic accounting or data-driven social engineering.
Setting aside single-minded, hard-driven ideological extremes, and prioritizing the actual, tangible and practicable leaves room for a myriad of views, hopes, preferences, obsessions, calling, missions and professions. Vitalizing democracy as we know it can even include deepening involvement with political parties as we know them. Properly balanced, partisan views can contribute to the health and vitality of the body politic within which they operate. Out of balance, and at odds with one another, the body the parties are part of spins around, stumbles, falls.
Taking action includes connecting, communication, deciding, and doing: getting down to work, including voting as a task and a duty. To vote in the root sense means to vow to do something, from the << Latin votum "a vow, wish, promise to a god, solemn pledge, dedication," noun use of neuter of votus, past participle of vovere "to promise, dedicate" … .>>
I’ve suggested reconsidering some common assumptions of what an election is, and how it functions. Instead of a contest between competing views and interests, we can think of an election as a collective deliberation process, culminating in a decision about who will represent us in decision-making bodies like city councils and, on the broader scale, in Queen’s Park and the House of Commons. For a short time, while there’s an election process unfolding, we the people are the town council, the parliament: The task at hand is to parley among ourselves for a few weeks, and then decide who will be parleying on our behalf for the next four years.
If we’re talking about a municipal election, and there’s an incumbent seeking another term, the decision-making process has two components: The first question is, should we re-elect this person? If the answer is no, and we agree that it is time to elect someone new, the question becomes: Who?
To help level the playing field, and to facilitate making the best possible choice, incumbents are best evaluated separately, primarily on their record, using all available information and applying a clear, consistent grading system. Meanwhile, challengers should be given every opportunity to introduce themselves to the public, and for developing their positions on the various considerations as the deliberation process unfolds. Any candidate that seems promising, from the perspective of any engaged, good-hearted citizen, should be given every kind of support.
As we deliberate, we don’t just listen to and talk about the various candidates, we’re also talking to them and with them. Prospective representatives should be allowed, even encouraged, to change their positions. The same goes for the winners: Voters deserve clear and honest declarations of intent, but the only firm promise or guarantee that is expected from a candidate is a promise to do their best, tell the truth, remain in open communication with the people they represent, and always stay alert for fresh approaches and possibilities.
When it’s all over, promising candidates who were not elected can be viewed as a talent pool, not just for future elections, but for civic endeavours of all kinds.
Just how we decide who we’re going to vote for together is an open question. However the decision is made, and whatever is decided, I think compliance when one is alone in the voting booth on the day of decision should always remain voluntary. Ultimately, it was, is and always will be up to you and to me. All I want is a procedure to help me determine who to vote with, and consequently, for.