CIVILITY IN GOVERNMENT

If we cling to the belief, perhaps dated and naive, that government should represent the best of our national character, that it should be the highest expression of our national will, and that it should be the greatest institution in our society, then we have been ill-served over the recent decades. Cynicism is the over-riding trait among the electorate. People are disengaged, sarcastic, and apathetic towards the political process at a time when we should be more engaged and involved, since monumental decisions loom just beyond the horizon.

One of the reasons for the disconnect between the people and the government who serve/rule them comes from a perception that there is no longer any civility in government. "Civility" in this case means more than just a lack of good manners: the perception now is that politics and government is mean-spirited, vicious, self-serving, shallow, and lacking in vision and intelligence. When one examines selected pieces of evidence, it is easy to see how the perception exists.

Item:

In the recently concluded Canadian federal election, the Conservative Party exhibited a strategy that worked successfully. That strategy involved the creation of several "attack" ads aimed at the Liberal Party's leader, Michael Ignatieff. The ads cast doubt on Ignatieff's patriotism and, indeed, even his loyalty to Canada, citing the close to three decades Ignatieff lived in the United States, earning distinction as a journalist, novelist, intellectual and teacher at prestigious universities like Harvard. What made this ad campaign even more odious was the fact that the Conservatives unveiled this campaign months ahead of the dropping of the election writ, taking advantage of their vast war chest and getting ahead of the actual election campaign to plant seeds of doubt in the electorate. The Liberals followed suit with attack ads of their own during the campaign, as a defence to the Conservatives' initiative, thus lowering their campaign. The attack ads became the defining feature of the election, obscuring legitimate discussion of real and pressing issues, such as the economy, job creation, foreign policy, environmental policy, aboriginal issues, etc.

Item:

Recent accusations by certain right-wing elements of the United States have attempted to cast doubt on President Obama's citizenship, birth, and academic record. Most of these accusations have been hurled by Donald Trump, entreprenneur and entertainer, who is testing the waters to gauge the level of support for his own presidential bid in 2012. President Obama has had to fend off these spurious accusations instead of spending time dealing with more pressing issues.

Item:

Recent trips through the United States ( chronicled in my blog "To The Heart Of Texas", available on blogspot.com ) featured a series of billboards spouting off on several contentious issues. Most noteable were boards featuring the smiling face of former President Bush asking motorists if they "Miss Me Yet?" while criticising the current administration for "broken promises". More shocking was the billboard showing an unflattering image of President Obama and the slogan "Socialist By Conduct". Other billboards railed against abortion, gun control and even Republican officials, threatening a "day of reckoning". The tone of these billboards was harsh, threatening, fear-mongering, and toxic. Undoubtedly, proponenets of these billboards would argue their "free speech" rights in posting these messages, but one must ponder the aim of the billboards.

Item:

Parliamentary sessions in Canada and the provinces feature the time-honoured tradition of "Question Period", where opposition members have the opportunity to ask members of the Government questions about policy, initiatives or current events. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this activity: to the contrary, questionning the Government is the very foundation of our democracy. But, with the advent of live television in these chambers, introduced during the 1970's, the grandstanding and behaviour of "honourable members" has sunk to the level of reality TV stars, or "Jerry Springer"-like participants, designed to draw undue attention to themselves and their agendas, or to embarrass the opponents into an almost catatonic state. Question Period now seems to be an effort to elicit emotional responses from parliamentarians and members of the public alike: we now enjoy the spectacle of a high-placed official ridiculed into an emotional melt-down, only to feast on the wounded official offering a tearful apology and a heart-felt request for a second chance to amend his/her ways.

Such nonsense demeans all of us.

Therefore, the following are offered as possible solutions to create more civility in government.

1) Eliminate all "attack" ads, especially before the official election campaign starts. Period. No exceptions. During election campaigns, no ads, either on television, radio, in print, or on-line, may name a leader or member of an opposing party, or mention his/her background. If a political official has done illegal or unsavoury things, it is the responsibility of the established media to find out about it and report it to the public, not the political parties or individual politicans. ( More about the media in a later post.) Failure to comply with this rule will result in hefty fines by a non-partizan election commission, or possible jail time.

2) Eliminate all ads before an actual election campaign begins. No exception. Public service announcements by government ministries, detailing existing programmes and how the public may get assistance in time of need are exceptions to this rule.

3) Equalize the amount of money spent by parties and individuals on election campaigns. Again, no exceptions. Make the rules crystal clear as to how money can be raised and spent. Eliminate loop-holes, such as those now being alleged against the current Mayor of Toronto and his brother. Offenders would face jail time, since violations could be construed as fraud.

4) Eliminate televised "debates" during election campaigns. The current situation does not allow for a true discussion of issues. Make debates regional in nature, have several of them, and do not televise them, nor allow radio or social or electronic media to cover them. Instead, place them in several locations and allow the general public to attend. Follow established rules and procedures of debate.

5) Remove television cameras from federal, provincial, and municipal legislatures. This would eliminate the grandstanding and histrionics so often seen in these sessions. It would also remove the so-called "sound-bite" mentality of politicians, who speak only in thirty second bursts of catchy phrases, designed to appear on nightly newscasts. Allow print and other "journalists" to attend these sessions, of course, to report to the public on the goings-on, but remove the temptation to become celebrities on the part of our elected officials.

6) Public billboards or other venues of published opinion may continue to operate, but must eliminate "ad-hominem" attacks on indivuals, and must not show the picture or image of an individual person. Ideas or issues may be displayed, in keeping with the democratic right of individuals or groups to promote their opinions. But they must be "idea" or "issue" based only: failure to do so should be examined under laws governing libel, slander, sedition, or fraud.

What must be underscored in all of this, of course, is that free speech must be protected. As cited above, critics of these suggestions may claim that the suggestions violate their rights to free speech. I counter with the notion that, as much as a person has the right to express his opinion, I have the right not to be exposed to their hatred, venom, short-sightedness, stupidity, fear-mongering, shock tactics etc. I will engage in true, intelligent, fact-based debate with anyone on any issue. I will express my perceptions of the truth, and offer my suggestions for solutions ( as I am doing now ) , but I will not resort to name-calling, grandstanding, villification, or scare-tactics: I expect the same of my opponents.

Restoring civility to government is long overdue. It reflects on all of us, as a society, if we can restore a level of respect to what should be the highest expression of all of us, regardless of political philosophy, allegiance, or social background.

We deserve better.

TRUE CONSENSUS: AN END TO PARTISANSHIP

John Macfarlane is the editor of "The Walrus" magazine. In many of his opening editorials, he decries the lack of clear focus in Canadian politics. In the most recent edition, he invokes the character Howard Beale in the 1976 movie "Network" and his most famous rant : "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Macfarlane uses this to try to encourage all of us to get mad at the current state of politics and government in Canada and, indeed, the rest of the so-called democratic world.

Much of the apathy felt by modern voters stems from a deep-rooted distrust of politicians. It can be argued that this distrust has always existed: those who see their tax money go to leaders who live luxurious lives at public expense, waste in government spending, and a sense that the money is taken and spent without any consultation with the people contribute to this. Perhaps the most striking event in modern times which has exascerbated this distrust is the Watergate scandal in 1973 in the United States.

In the democracies, distrust is also caused by the sheer viciousness of partisan politics. More and more, partizanship has taken center stage in our political considerations. In the United States, it has become bitter and border-line racist. Many Republicans, who opposed the health care reforms of President Obama ( which, of course, is permitted and even encouraged in democracies ), resorted to posters and slogans of the lowest racist terms. The Tea Party movement in the U.S. calls the administration unflattering names and even has people show up at their rallies protesting gun control legislation by openly carrying semi- and fully-automatic firearms with signs threatening to use them if Democrats try to push further gun laws.

In Canada, the partizanship is not as blatantly hostile, but still contains many examples of unseemly behaviour. The Conservatives of Stephan Harper have embarked on an advertising campaign featuring scathing and unflattering images and words of their Liberal opponent, Michael Ignatieff, calling him unpatriotic, arrogant, and incompetant. Whether any of these charges have any merit is not the issue: the fact that the campaign is in full swing even before an election has been called makes the electorate cringe and want to cover their ears and eyes.

It all smacks of childishness and it is crass politics at its worst.

When I taught history at G.L. Roberts Collegiate in Oshawa, one of our tasks was to study politics and government, the theory being that informed students would become responsible voters. It is a noble idea, and I support it whole-heartedly. But one of the problems was in the core of the lessons we tried to learn. In order to create a sense of respect for our political leaders, we learned about the almost sacred traditions and honourable characteristics of government. We tried to create a mystique of the greatness and significance of those momentous actions and decisions made by our elected leaders in our parliaments. For the most part, the students bought into these ideas. However, when we took them to Queen's Park to witness Question Period, and told our students to be on their best behaviour, inevitably they were witness to some of the most outrageous and juvenile behaviour .... on the part of their elected representatives. It was embarrassing and appaling to listen and watch these parliamentarians at "work". Needless to say, these forays into the halls of power helped to create the lasting impression of cynicism as these students grew into voters. It certainly is not the students' fault for this: the fault lies in our leaders.

Such behaviour results in the partizan atmosphere parliaments have become. If one is elected to a house of assembly, one is expected to be a team player, to fulfill a role of shill, cheerleader and heckler, and then to vote as the party leadership tells one to vote. Undoubtedly, debate within parties is sometimes lively and even productive in caucus or cabinet, but when the House sits in public session, the players take up their position on the team bench and play their roles. It has become more boisterous and rancorous, and accomplishes nothing except to make the parliamentarians look bad.

The media has a role to play in this debacle. News packaged as entertainment apparently sells, and, in the unending competition to garner high ratings, media outlets fall over each other to pander to this behaviour. Why? Because the public laughs at the buffoonery and laps it up. Partizan hacks line up on news shows to offer "debate" or "insight" on the issues of the day, only to get into shouting matches which spews out the party line that the viewers or readers have heard before. Serious debate? Productive discussion? Where?

Macfarlane rants in several issues of "The Walrus" about this, but offers no solution, other than for his readers to get more involved in the political process. But, perhaps the solution is under our noses, and is practiced in two jurisdictions in Canada, namely Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. It is Consensus Government.

Generally and simply put, Consensus Government is democracy without political parties. When an election is held in the territories, candidates are elected based on their opinions on issues and their vision as to how the territory should be governed. The voters listen and vote for the person they agree with. A simple majority in each riding determines the elected representative. This sounds very much like what we have now, except that the candidates do not follow a prescribed party line. Where the difference occurs, however, is in the legislature itself when it convenes for the first time after an election. In the assembly room, the members choose a Speaker, a Premier and a Cabinet from within their own ranks. Undoubtedly, much politicking goes on in these opening sessions, but, when the officers are chosen, the House gets down to business. Opposition occurs naturally, but discussion is free, open, constructive, and without partizan restraint. At no time does any partizanship rear its ugly head. Work gets done, decisions are made, and the electorate is involved: the statistics for voter turnout in Nunavut are staggering. In 2008, the media was worried that voter turnout in the territorial election had dropped by 10% ... to 71% ! In 2004, over 80% of the electorate voted. Consider that Nunavat is a vast territory, where voting is often a difficult and arduous task, covering immense distances for voters to go to a poll. Those statistics make the current apathy in the rest of Canada for federal and provincial elections more stark and disappointing.

Consensus Government is not perfect, by any means. One has only to look at several municipal councils in Southern Ontario to see that disfunction can occur. But, given the immaturity of several of our provincial and federal leaders, it is an experiment whose time has surely come. The elimination of political parties doesn't mean the end of political ideas, debate, and theory. To the contrary, it could mean the salvation of these precious things.

A NEW ELECTORATE: RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

"The people is sovereign". From the masses comes collective wisdom and authority. In a democracy, this simple concept is central to the entire political and philosophical structure. It means that, as Alec Guiness said when playing King Charles I in the movie "Cromwell", there are "extraordinary possibilities in very ordinary people."

Over the years, wars have been fought, blood shed, and magnificent words uttered about this notion. In throwing off the shackles of absolute monarchy, dictatorship, and narrow oligarchies, the people who live in democracies control their own destinies and determine how they are ruled and who rules them. It would seem that those who are fortunate enough to live in such countries would celebrate their right to participate every chance they could. However, if democracy is the best government in the world, why do so many people in democratic countries opt out and cease caring? Why do so many refuse to vote? Why do so many not take their rights and responsibilites of citizenship seriously?

Canada provides an interesting example of this lack of commitment. In the 2008 federal election, more than 13 million people voted: an impressive number when viewed as a simple fact on a page. But the 13 million voters represented a mere 58.8% of the number of registered eligible voters in the country. That figure was down from the previous election in 2006, wherein almost a million more voters cast their ballot, representing 64.7% of the total eligible voters. Scanning the statistics of all Canadian federal elections, one sees that 2008 was the low-water mark of voting participation, while the election of March, 1958 was the highest at 79.4%.

Statistics can be made to prove many things, of course. But what seems to emerge from this quick analysis is the fact that Canadians are a somewhat apathetic lot when it comes to exercising their democratic right to vote. The recent weak numbers fly in the face of the sacrifice of young Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, where, we are made to believe, they are fighting for the cause of greater deomocracy and freedom in a country that has known nothing but tyrrany and terror all through its history. Other examples of people yearning for the same rights that Canadians can't be bothered to exercise are seen in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen in current times, and in South Africa, China, the former Soviet bloc, and Latin America in the past three decades.

The fact that 42% of Canadian voters didn't bother to vote in the last election might mean dissatisfaction with the options with which they were presented. It might also mean that they were fatigued by the recent spate of elections and manoeuverings that they have been forced to witness from their so-called leaders. Or, it may mean that the current system of allowing anyone over the age of 18, with no mental deficiencies, no criminal record, and proper citizenship to be eligible to vote IF THEY CHOOSE is in need of an overhaul.

Canada's voting statistics are not much different from most democratic countries. In the last few decades, people have become jaded with the political process. Since Watergate, the electorate seems to sit in wait of the latest scandal or example of inefficient government, and are rarely disappointed. Politicians are not trusted, the process of choosing new governments has become a mean-spirited dog fight among those contesting the elections, and the media has bombarded voters with constant "coverage" until the inevitable fatigue sets in among the population. Many people prefer not to participate, claiming that their single vote won't mean much, and that they are either too tired or too bored to bother to go out on election day. Is this democracy?

It is preferred, of course, to see large numbers of people turn out on election day to cast their vote. It is their right to do so. But when so many opt not to vote, their sacred democratic right is forfeit. For what, then, did all those former generations fight, labour, struggle, and, in many cases, die? Surely, their sacrifice was in vain. Surely it must be agreed that, for us who follow those who sacrificed, for us who enjoy the rights gained by their efforts, our rights come with a responsibility to participate in the process which they passed down to us.

The question is, how can this responsibility to exercise our right be encouraged? The answer may lie in two parts.

First, make voting mandatory. There are several countries who do this, with varying degrees of success. Perhaps the best known model is that of Australia. Australia makes voting in federal and state or territorial elections mandatory for all eligible voters. Failure to do so results in a fine, usually very small. This sounds like a great idea to encourage voting, but articles on the subject suggest that it has only partial success. People can avoid voting and the accompanying fine by claiming illness or other extenuating circumstances. Authorities are reluctant to persue these claims, and fines are often waived. In other situations, those who are forced to vote often deliberately spoil their ballot by voting for fictitious persons, dead people, or ludicrous ideas on referendums. It often makes for humourous reading for scrutineers and vote counters.

Mandatory voting and an accompanying fine for offenders is an idea that has merit. But how does a country avoid the possible abuses and protests outlined above? A possible solution lies in the second part of the concept.

Make voters take a simple test to determine if they have the basic knowledge to participate in the political process. In other words, when a person reaches eleigible voting age, have them write a simple, half-hour test that asks them basic questions on how the government and the political system works. This would be a test that any high school student, who is studious enough, and has a good, serious outlook on his or her responsibilites as a citizen could pass. The test would be re-administered every few years, just to ensure that a voter was taking his or her obligation seriously. The test would be administered and evaluated by a non-partizan agency and would not involve the evaluators knowing the identity of the person taking the test.

Why would a test be useful as a possible solution to voter apathy? Because if a potential voter had no interest whatsoever in taking the test, it would show that that voter had no interest in exercising his or her right to vote. Similarly, if a potential voter should fail the simple test, it would prove one of two things: that the voter needed to learn just what he or she was voting for, or that the potential voter was not taking the test seriously, and that he or she would not take future elections seriously either, therefore potentially wasting or spoiling his or her vote.

The test would weed out "bad" or reluctant voters from the process. It would give people a chance to opt out of the process in a democratic way: if a potential voter does not want to vote in the future, the voter could simply not take the test, or deliberately fail the test. This is democratic because it gives a person options, and the results of the test would be calculated fairly, not based on any possible prejudice. It is democratic also in that, if the potential voter decided to take the test again, presumably when they have decided that they wish to participate in the political process as a voter, they could do so, hoping to give a better effort,pass the test and become an eligible voter.

These two parts provide a solution. With mandatory voting combined with an eligibility test, only those voters who are interested in the political process could vote, and would be sure to do so in order to avoid paying a fine. If legitimate reasons ( such as verifiable illness or bereavement ) are presented, a voter could be excused from voting without the fine. But it is presumed that voters who have bothered to take the eligibility test and pass it would be motivated to vote in every election.

Thus, our voter turnout numbers would be better. Thus we would have a real working democracy. Those who chose to fail the test, avoid the test, or avoid voting would not count in the statistics, and would suffer the penalty of fines or the stigma of not being an eligible voter.

Would this work? Only a practical test would prove it one way or the other. But to continue in our current system dishonours those who believe in the sanctity of democratic rights. And it dishonours those who have fought for those rights. To continue as we have done so for generations makes a mockery of the notion that we are a true democracy.