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.