Heart-Based Leadership Vs "Who's the Boss?"

Still on the Care Bear Economics thing, but moreso - the topic of leadership:

There's a real emphasis this election on The Leader.  Harper is either a failed leader, because he's made bad choices, or a tough leader, because damnit, he's not afraid to make decisions.  Trudeau is either a visionary leader or a guy not up to the task of being a leader.  Mulcair must prove himself to be leader-like to the masses.

Step back from this frame, and what emerges is the impression of democracy as this thing that's run by one all-powerful guy at the top.  

Like a corporation.  Or a monarchy.

That's not what democracy is about, though.  In our system, decisions are supposed to be held to account and even informed by representatives of the people.  That way, regional issues aren't ignored and no one person can universally declare war against any group, internal or external.

When all the decision-making power rests in one set of hands - well it can't, can it?  Even if they want to think that's the case.  So you end up with people doing the job of being the boss besides the actual boss, but trying to make sure they don't get caught.

The Duffy affair, if the current narrative holds, is all about that.

Beyond this, when the boss is calling all the shots, people aren't particularly inspired to contribute their ideas, to fact-check or double-check the lay of the land.  Innovation isn't encouraged, because hey - that's the boss' job.

As much as centralized parties led by Tough Boss leaders running our institutions is their narrative, it's one the people to a surprising degree support.

Those for Trudeau say he's the man for the job.  Those for Harper say he's the only one to keep the country safe.  Mulcair's fans also tout him as the only one to course-correct ship Canada.

Where are the demands for increased consultation, democracy between elections, co-designed policy?

They exist among a subset of the public service and engaged citizens, but by and large, they're absent from the general discussion.

One of the big complaints elected officials will articulate (but mostly off-record) is that all they hear from constituents is complaints about what's not working and demands to do better on what's working only marginally.  Appreciation for good deeds is scant, and ideas and plans almost non=existent.

Heart-based leadership is about empowering people; picture politicians as facilitators rather than feudal lords.  The tough decisions would be joint decisions steered by Members and Ministers, because that's how democracy is supposed to work.

That's not what we're asking for, is it?

We talk a lot about the failings of democracy in Canada.  I come back to this:

You can't have an Open Government if you don't have a Responsible Society.

For that, we need a revistiation of the social contract - what we get, what we expect, but also what are responsibilities are.

If we're not proactivley looking to make that happen, then the state of affairs in Canada are as much a reflection of us as it is of them.

I shouted out

"Who killed democracy?"

When after all

It was You and Me

Clarificaiton of Speech

When I raised Ms. Todd’s views during my Senate appearance, Senator Denise Batters responded that she had since “clarified her views on the bill.”

 

 

So I'm clear - an unelected Senator responded that a voter "clarified her views" on a bill that said voter - the mom of Amanda Todd - has previously and very diplomatically criticized?

 

"Clarified" is politics-speak jargon that really means "misspoke and is essentially issuing a retraction without having to apologize."  What Batters suggests is that has had a nudged change of heart on the Conservative Bill.

 

That's a big step further than Peter McKay saying "look, I talked to her and helped her understand the intent in a way that may wasn't clear before."  It's essentially saying that the woman whose dead daughter is being used to brand the bill is being manipulated or silenced by unelected partisans.

 

Think on that for a second.

 

Of course, all this could be cleared up if Carol Todd could express her current understanding and believe in committee.  Which she is not being allowed to do.

 

Her daughter's image is being used to promote a bill with components she disagrees with and she's being silenced so as not to muck up the narrative.

 

There's been more than a few people silenced in recent years; it started with bureaucrats, moved to not-for-profits, and now it's taking in private citizens.

 

If you don't find that troubling, then Harper was right - Canadians fundamentally don't care about Parliament.  That means our democracy no longer functions as designed.

 

And that's a matter that certainly deserves clarification.

 

 

Sacrifice and the Death of Political Conviction

Well, no, that's not the final indignity, is it?  Because now the administration will have to spend the next year, probably more, explaining away Assad's refusal to live up to this weekend's agreement, and the refusal of his Russian patrons to hold him to it, while the slaughter in Syria continues unabated.

It's easy to glean why Obama has backed down - it's the same reason any government backs down on principles they held dear before coming to power. 

They don't want to wear the consequences of their actions.  They'd rather stay in power and delude themselves with the hope of leaving a positive legacy for the history books.

Or, you get the Putins, Assads and Kims of the world, equally enamoured with power but unwilling to entertain the notion of defeat of their principles.  These folk quash opposition through force of arms and use propaganda to spread the wold of their own righteousness.  These dictators delude themselves that, as empire builders, they get to write their own history - I'd like to know which examples they point to as justification of this, 'cause I can't think of one.

In both cases, the guiding principle seems to be this:

If you learn anything about the way governments operate, it's you never willingly give up power if you can prevent it.  If you really believe in what you're doing, and that it's the best course for the people and for the country, you don't give it up.

Sorry, folks - that's not leadership - nor is it democratic. 

Power is not an end, it's a means.  The role of Government is to implement policy reflective of the needs and, where warranted, wants of society.  That's not what we have - instead, we have Parties that seek out coalitions of support and develop wedge policies designed to keep them in power, even at the expense of the health of their constituencies.

A moderate form is what Quebec is doing, targeting minorities to curry favour with a coalition of voters they think will support them.  More extreme is the blatantly racist policies of Hungary's Jobbik or the hate crimes being perpetuated by Greece's Golden Dawn.  At the extreme ends of this spectrum you have North Korea and Syria, who turn the oppression and murder of their own people into a heroic nationalistic cause.

We in the West like to tell ourselves we are people of conscience; we don't engage in wars, we just play at them.  Attack ads, robocalls, wedge policies and fiendishly clever Machiavellian tactics; our political War Rooms employ every political, tactical and communications weapon they can think of to destroy their opponents - but not really destroy them, we're too sophisticated for that.  Bullying competitors and destroying reputations is okay, but hey, we've got principles.  There are lines we simply don't cross, right?

As often as not, these political soldiers twirling their moustaches behind the curtains are hired guns who love the fight more than they believe in the cause.  It why they can so easily flip a position and spin it an indication of resolve.

But how many of these operators would be willing to fall on their sword for what they believe in?  Again, I can't think of one.  Really, though - why should they?  That's not the example being set from the top.  When it's all about staying on top, leaders dedicate far too much of their time pushing others down.  That's not sustainable.

Obsolescence should be the first imperative of all leaders; that doesn't mean clinging to power but as quickly as possible ensuring it is comfortably and confidently in the hands of your troops and ensuring the right infrastructure is in place so that any one person can be replaced.   

Humility is essential for leadership; the fact is, if you really believe what you are doing is right, you should be able to communicate it to everyone, not tailor your message for a few.  If you can't, there's a good chance that you're wrong.  There's no shame in that - no one person is perfect.  The solutions we are capable of when we willingly work and compromise together are always the best for society at present - hence democracy, which we can't honestly say we have now.

Sacrifice.  Killing or demonizing others, throwing your own people under the bus and a reliance on scapegoats or straw men when the going gets tough isn't proof you believe in what you're doing - quite the reverse.  As Andrew Coyne has elegantly stated elsewhere, leaders demonstrate conviction of action when they put themselves in the line of fire.

Conviction isn't determined by what people say about you down the road, nor who you step on to get your way.  Conviction is demonstrated by what you do today and how much personal risk you are willing to take in furtherance of your beliefs.

For all our talk about human rights, freedoms and liberties, equality for all and the rest of it, we are rank hypocrites unless we are willing to put ourselves on the line to ensure everyone has the privileges we cherish.  After all, you can't have rights without responsibilities.

There are all sorts of things we can do right now to stem the violence in Syria; each of them involves risk for the West.  If we truly believe in all the things we say we do, that won't matter.

All it takes is conviction.

When society is indifferent, democracy erodes - and hate flourishes

"There is a limit which is transcended: you step over the limit and you can do more, constant escalation is possible."

A Hungarian philosopher states the great challenge of our times - people are turning inward and becoming indifferent to the plight of others or the subtle corruptions of our governing institutions. At all levels, it was this “take what I can get” mentality that fuelled the European debt crisis. It’s beginning to happen here, too.

Stephen Harper told us that Canadians "don't care" about the operations of Parliament; his subsequent majority government proved him right. As long as taxes get cut and programs that don't impact "me" get cut, why should I care?

As a result, the attempted bribing of Chuck Cadman, the utterly false robocalls implying Irwin Cotler was resigning, fake lakes, billions of lost funds, "political truths", stifled representatives and Senate entitlement draws ire, but not action.

Note the trend - like a kid testing their boundaries, these "leaders" are pushing the boundaries of to see what they can get away with. The more they get away with, the more they do. These partisan operatives may pat themselves on the back , but this isn't about increasing cleverness - it's about eroding ethics.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's team has boasted of creating fake identities and spreading untruths to further their candidate's cause; what's unspooling now in Toronto politics is seen as "a distraction" rather than the crisis it is.

Oh - and that's at least three City Councillors who've been caught in DUI incidents getting off with a slap on the wrist. Would an average citizen have gotten off so easily? Would a Somali Canadian have gotten off so easily? There are other examples out there, past and present, of Political Parties who knew they had Members suffering from substance abuse problems but chose to do nothing for the individual, so long as the brand wasn’t tarnished.

Elie Wiesel tells us that "the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference." Edmund Burke said something similar: “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Mark Towhey, at the very least, tried to do something to help a leader in need. Can the same be said for others in political inner circles? Can it be said for citizens at large?

The wrong boundaries are being pushed – bitter, cynical and selfish approaches to politics are being overlooked while attempts at moving the ball in the opposite direction get ridiculed with attack ads.

We can’t turn our backs on these structural, social and personal problems much longer. Nobody is going to come down and solve our problems for us – it’s up to us, all of us, to take ownership of our society and make it whole again.

History provides countless examples of what happens when we don’t.

Democracy: If You Don't Use It, You Lose It

It’s very difficult for me to be out of my class and I certainly don’t want to be, but I also think democracy and our rights are more important than some of the minor inconveniences,” he said.

Bingo. 

Canadians are very lucky – we have a democracy to neglect.  We don’t face threats on our boarders, as some nations do.  We don’t get killed by government authorities.  Most Canadians (but not all) have access to the basic necessities required for life.  Because we have it so good, it can be easy to take these hard-one privileges for granted, but they are not entitlements.

Our democracy isn’t under attack, but it is eroding – and it’s all of our fault.  We’ve stopped working together and holding ourselves accountable.  We’re buying into the spin, making do with the cake we’re given.

But no so these students.  They are setting an example of active engagement we should all pay attention to.

Sometimes it takes the children to lead, doesn’t it?

Michael Ignatieff on Our Fragile Democracy

"In the house of democracy there are no enemies.”

Of course, this is why Ignatieff failed as a politician - because we're in polarized times and we see only enemies.  He's right, though - when it becomes about standing against, democracy is lost.

Democracy is a shared endeavor - we move forward together.

Democratic Disengagement, Occupy and Social Evolution

Even now, in these days of microphones and loud-speakers, we all know that a group meeting is no way to resolve issues for a group of thousands of people.  Hence a large society must be structured and centralized if it is to reach decisions effectively.

 

- Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel

 

 

The Occupy and Tea Party movements share one thing in common - they both think our current system of social organization is broken.  Both agree that the voice of individuals is being lost in the functioning of our model of the democratic process.  From that point, though, the two movements diverge; while the Tea Party folk embrace an Ayn Rand view that disavows society and focuses instead on individual agency, Occupy is committed to finding ways to raise individual concerns up to the level of societal awareness.

 

The Tea Party enjoys great popularity, but only among a segment of the population.  Their organizers tend to appear angry, aggressive and close-minded in how they present themselves.  While they have been successful in stirring the pot and generating attention, it's questionable how much chance they have of nurturing actual change.  The radicals among their ranks turn off moderate conservatives while those politicians who tack their way lose the opportunity to build broader coalitions of support among their populaces.  This doesn't have to matter - as Stephen Harper has proven, you can completely write off whole provinces in your political calculations and still win.  But what does this do to democracy?  Voter turnout is dwindling for a reason - people are feeling less and less represented by their Representatives and tuning out.

 

It's difficult to figure out just what Occupy stands for.  Certainly, it has no defined leader, no bureaucratic system of information gathering and policy formation; a key rule adopted by Occupiers was decision by consensus.  This has proven difficult, not just because of differences of opinions, but sheer logistics.  I remember visiting the Occupy Bay Street camp in Toronto and witnessing the challenges of information sharing in its most basic form.  If you've ever been to a Q&A with one microphone, a long line of questioners, a poor sound system and limited time, picture all of that happening out of doors, without the audio.  Without question, however, Occupy has changed politics - politicians have noticed the broad social representation to be found among the ranks of Occupy and its supporters and have begun to throw some recognition there way.  The 47% fits perfectly into that narrative.

 

So, on the one hand, we have the Tea Party crowd being dismissive of viewpoints that differ from their own and on the other, Occupy trying to raise the voices of those who feel they have been dismissed.  It may be the anthropologist in me, but I think the two perspectives boil down to this - the  Objectivist Tea Party unconsciously wants to recreate a Band-type of social organization, described by Jared Diamond as one "where everyone is closely related to everyone else, people related simultaneously to both quarreling parties step in to mediate quarrels."  Occupy wants to infuse the State model with a Band-level of voice afforded to all members of society, especially those who with less influence due to lineage or circumstance.

 

Both of these movements face a basic problem of numbers.  A Tea Party Objectivist model only works in smaller groups, where there is less variety of opinion (and ethnicity, religion and social stratification as a result).  The same holds true for Occupy - you cannot have a Circle of discussion that gives voices to thousands of individuals located in pockets across thousands of kilometers of geography.  Similarly, Stephen Harper is finding his quasi-Objectivist perspective at odds with a growing number of stakeholders demanding centralized coordination for far-reaching programs like healthcare.

 

More broadly, there's a growing recognition that our representative democracy isn't all that representative; disaffected voters feel like they don't know the issues, their concerns aren't being listened to and that it doesn't matter who gets elected, their voice doesn't resonate.  Of course, it has always been thus, with the divide becoming sharper the larger and more diverse society gets.  The only reason this trend is getting more attention today is due to the rise of social media, allowing for groups like Samara to spread their findings more widely and for media to pick up on countless, specific voices of disaffection through mediums like Twitter.

 

I disagree with Don Tapscott when he suggests that our social system is broken - rather, I think that society has simply grown beyond it, just as we have the Band or the Tribe.  While we still have sub-units of organization; the family, the kin circle, the class, the province, the state - society has grown so large and integrated that we need to add another tier to the top of the organizational pyramid, facilitating greater connectivity and coordination for all.

 

At the same time, there is demand for greater specialization within society itself.  Specialization is the history of civilization; the division of labour has separated food producers from tool producers from bureaucrats, always building the base of the pyramid outwards.  This applies to institutions as much as it does to individuals; Head Men were separated into Kings and their courts, then Kings and Churches, then Heads of State, Churches and Governments, etc.

 

The global integration of people, labour and the trade of goods has brought us to a point where societal needs are too complex; our modern systems of governance and representation aren't up to the job.  Change is inevitable.  What that change will eventually look like, I don't know.  It's worth noting, however, another line from Guns, Germs and Steel: "societies of thousands can exist only if they develop centralized authority to monopolize force and resolve conflicts."

 

I'm not sure if I agree with the words "monopolize force" - I think that's too limited, and also neglects some powerful historical examples of unifying causes that didn't rely on force.  The initial spread of Christianity and Islam were due to the power of the vision and charisma of their leaders - the sword only came later.  For Buddhism, it's always been the message that has brought people together, allowing them to coordinate efforts and resources towards common goals.  Politics works a lot like this, too, at its best - Trudeaumania was a phenomenon because people bought into Trudeau and the concept of the Just Society, rather than being forced or coerced into believing.   

 

To me, it seems the major challenges that society faces today are:

 

- the disparity that is inevitable in a massive populace with minimal internal coordination and the resulting social disconnect

 

- the sheer challenge of engaging all citizenry through a representative system that allows for a majority of voices to be heard and opinions to be represented through policy

 

- a dearth of strong, common visions and strong, engaging leaders that broader segments of the populace can rally behind

 

Unlike those trumpeting the end of civilization and the demise of innovation, however, I think that we're going to expand upwards and outwards, overcoming this hurdle as we have all others in the history of society.  I think that we'll be seeing a re-emergence of rock-star leaders with powerful visions that people can see themselves reflected in and feel inspired by.  These trailblazers will be buffeted by communities of engaged individuals using social media as a key tool to lift up their leaders.  Invariably, the brands these leaders engender will be bigger than the leaders themselves, leading to the risk of burying the men and women beneath the hype (as happened to Barack Obama).

 

A solution to this challenge will be for the Leaders - the Head Men and Women - to share the spotlight a little with their teams, spreading the wealth and responsibility, putting less burden on the shoulders of one.  You can see that happening already with Justin Trudeau's rockstar campaign launch and the visibility of his young, likable and capable campaign team.  In short, we're going to be turning the person at the top into a community, trickling responsibility further down the chain and leading to yet further social specialization.  With such a strong degree of specialization, there's increased demand for more bodies to develop greater, nuanced skills, which results in more stuff, more demand, more production, greater prosperity and less poverty.

 

But you don't have to take it from me.  Family, Band, Tribe, State - the trend lines are the history of social evolution.

 

Canada Watches Its Democracy Erode

Those aren't my words - I took that headline from The Australian.  A paper on the far side of the world that is watching what's happening here with sadness.

What made me think of this today?  I read the article below by Lorrie Goldstien and wondered, where does education fit into this?  If we're spending all of our resources on the back end, we're not solving anything, structurally - just throwing the starfish back in the sea, one at a time.  Or trying to cure lead poisoning might be a better analogy.

This one quote stood out:

"This isn’t surprising. Few criminals start out by gunning down other criminals in public places, with utter disregard for the lives of innocent bystanders.

Before that happens, they commit a series of escalating offences, typically involving increasing levels of violence, which our justice system does nothing to deter, even when it comes to such basic things as enforcing parole, bail and house arrest orders and holding people responsible when they are violated."

 - because it reminded me of the article I read previously, which focused on Harper's piling up of democratic infractions:

"Some of us thought the repercussions from any or all of these developments might have prompted him to change his ways. But we were delusional. His view , as he has made clear, is that it’s just process and the people don’t really care about process. In that, beginning with the Magna Carta, people fought hundreds of years for due democratic process, you might say some do care. But, given his electoral success to date, Mr. Harper has evidence to the contrary."

Make no mistake it, Stephen Harper is dismantling Canadian democracy - our system has become more opaque, less informed, more cynical - more empire than the federation we signed up for.  The reason for this, to me, is pretty clear - Harper doesn't trust, has contempt for and ultimately fears what the Opposition (both on the Hill and any group that opposes him) could do to him.  Err, the country. 

With each offence he commits and gets away with, Harper is emboldened to break the rules a bit further.  What's more, this is the Prime Minister - supposedly, the most accountable man in Canada.  If he can get away with rule-breaking, what message does it send to others? 

We're left with two questions to be answered:

Do Canadians care enough about our democratic process?

For those that are fully behind Harper's dismantling of transparency and accountability - have you thought what will happen when he's gone?

An Argument for a Runner-Up Senate

Mr. Brown recalls how he and Mr. Harper discussed at Caesar’s how a reformed, elected Senate and an unchanged House of Commons might interact: A Senate with newfound democratic legitimacy might rival the House in ways never before seen, and both men knew there was nothing in the Constitution preventing a deadlock or even a Senate-sparked government shut-down.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has committed to Senate reform.  There are not a few Canadians who feel a Senate no longer serves any purpose and should be gotten rid of entirely; their main argument is that an unelected body does not represent the will of Canadians, which the Prime Minister would seem to agree with.

At the same time, Canada is grappling with a democratic deficit - voter turnout is trending down and, as the electoral watering hole shrinks, the politics that covets those votes is getting nastier.  Part of the problem here is the nature of our first-past-the-post system; how many voters can legitimately claim that their votes make no difference in the forming of government?  The majority of Canadians who voted did not vote for the Harper Conservatives, to say nothing of those who didn't vote at all.  This isn't a trend that will encourage voter turnout.

There have been suggestions of alternative electoral systems we could employ to fix the imbalance between votes cast and results, with a Mixed Member Proportional System frequently being cited as an option.

I think we're making this challenge more complicated than it needs to be, because we're looking at Senate reform and electoral reform as separate entities.  Ultimately, we have one voter - why not take the best of what we have and tailor it to better represent that voter's choices?

A Runner Up Senate

What if, instead of appointed Senators or separately elected Senators, the Red Chamber were filled with Runner-Up Candidates of general elections from individual ridings across the country? 

We could set a fixed number of Senate seats per province/territory; the runner-up candidates with the highest aggregate vote-counts would then end up not in the House of Commons, but in the Senate.  Sober second thought would still be in place and would more accurately represent the will of Canadians as expressed by their votes.

I see this as positive in a couple of ways - one, it would validate voting for those who feel their voice is lost in the first-past-the-post system.  It could also help reduce the partisan nastiness that is increasing in our system, particularly at the local level.  Knowing you might have to work with your riding-level opponents in Ottawa and that they might have a say in the positions you put forward might reduce the chicanery that is all too common in political brinkmanship.

Yes, there's a risk of such a move leading to more hyper-sensitive political in-fighting, positioning and gridlock, but if the right relationships are built between candidates on the ground, I think this would be far less of a problem.  Again, it's about empowering the individual representatives to represent the views they were elected on but also the interests of their constituents.  In addition, it's really more of a risk to the Parties that try to play games; as Robocalls is proving, the more complicated you make your opaque voter manipulation schemes, the harder they are to carry through to completion without getting burned in the process.

Forcing our politicians to view collaboration as part of their long game can only benefit Canadian politics and our national democracy.  That's my view, anyway.  I'd love to hear yours.

Have a Care for Canada's Democracy

“I think the view would be if you have the Prime Minister or a minister constantly responding to it, you’re inflating the issue to a point that you don’t want it inflated to particularly given the government’s strong denunciation of its involvement in all of this,” Mr. Powers said.

The Conservative Party of Canada would tell us Canadians don't care about the Robocall scandal. They say that actual Canadians don't care about the environment. They've even told us Canadians don't care about the operations of Parliament, the most important institution in our Canadian democracy.

Of course, they aren't about democracy. They're about empire-building. The CPC doesn't seem to have a lot of faith in Canadians. Or perhaps, is it just that they don't really care about us?

A senior Tory advisor once told me that the only thing politicians care about is power and that they'll do whatever they can get away with to get and retain it. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever I heard one.

The Tragedy of the House of Commons

“The best theory we have says they are rationally right to be so ignorant.  Hence, although we have democracy, of a sort, it is wishful thinking to suppose that it is representative of people’s actual interests.”

Russell Hardin

 Outrunning the Bear

There is no question about it; Canada has a democratic deficit.  The government that leads us is making majority decisions on a mandate provided by a thin minority of Canadians.  Debate is being polarized and stifled at each and every level.  The independent bodies that are meant to provide impartial public service, provide data and speak truth to power are being handicapped in severe ways.  Politics has trumped policy; we have Federal Cabinet Members suggesting their Party “go over the heads of the Members of Parliament” to avoid debate and compromise.  In Ontario, we have a Leader of the Opposition advocating for the provincial government to overrule the municipal government regarding municipal issues; in that municipality, Toronto, we have gridlock in Council due to an intransigent Mayor unwilling to work with his colleagues.  Investigations are being conducted into illegal voter suppression; political operatives are bragging about their success at candidate suppression.

Canadians, rightfully, are becoming frustrated with the trend; that frustration is manifesting itself through a steady decrease in voter turnout at the provincial and federal levels.  Russell Hardin argues there is a rational justification for this; the first-past the post system leaves far too many voter intentions behind.  When your vote doesn’t count, when Government is “going over the heads of” elected officials anyway and when you don’t see your views reflected in policy directions time and time again, what’s the point?  Now, with electoral fraud, you have to contend with the fear of your vote being actively suppressed.  Add to this all the non-voters that are benefiting from our social system and the bitterness only mounts.  Clearly the benefit to the individual in voting is far outweighed by the negatives.

Put all this another way – voters, acting independently and rationally with the pros and cons of their participation in our democratic system in mind are determining that the costs outweigh the benefits; that being the case, what’s the point of doing the work? 

When The Watering Hole Shrinks…

Another certainty creeping into our collective consciousness; Canadian politics is becoming increasingly polarized.  All Political Parties are defining the options for Canadians as “us vs. those who want to destroy our country” and employing increasingly militant tactics.  Even positive visions are being touted as chances to "piss off the other Parties."  Every political event, every policy position is being filtered through a partisan lens.  Platforms are being built on a foundation of emotion, with actual policy coming somewhere down the decision tree.  MPs are being encouraged to focus on protecting the Party rather than supporting their constituents.  Even the term “evidence-based” is being fractured for political use.

Our politics is becoming increasingly narrow in its focus, too.  Through the advent of micro targeting technologies and strategies, Political Parties are now able to identify the voting patterns, issues-of-concern, demographic realities and trends of specific voters down to the street-level.  This depth of knowledge does a couple of things; it allows Parties to target their voter-persuasion tactics and messaging to the stated (or vested) interests of individual voters.  It allows political operatives and candidates to avoid the doors of defined non-voters, too,  avoiding time-consuming discussions that lead nowhere.  It allows Party planners to pepper debate and press appearances with only the speaking points that matter to their supporters and ignore everything else.   On the darker side, this level of specificity also allows for very targeted voter-suppression techniques, which though illegal, have already happened.

To sum up; if less people are voting and I can specifically target those voters who might actually vote for me, what sense does it make for me to make the effort to engage non-partisans?  That’s a use of resources and time that’s hard to defend.  Individual campaigns justify this exclusionary approach by saying that it’s up to the Party’s central campaign machine to use persuasion techniques on swing voters, but as we’ve just seen, a good deal of the general messaging is about polarizing the options, not engaging the masses. 

Reaping What We Sow

What does all of this political chicanery have to do with land tenure in medieval Europe?  A frightening lot.

In 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin (no relation to Russell, so far as I know) described a scenario in which multiple actors, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.  He called this dilemma “The Tragedy of the Commons.”  Commons referred to a common plot of land communally owned by a group of farmers; it could just as well refer to Canadian democracy, best represented by the House of Commons.

With all of this in mind, here’s what I think is happening in Canadian politics.

Scorched Earth

Direct marketing strategies and personalized communication tools are encouraging Canadians (and people of other jurisdictions as well) to focus on personal interests.  The sales methodology preferred by marketing gurus fits within the meme of “it’s all about you” and “you’re worth it” (ironically the position the elite in our society have always staked out for themselves).  The more individualized social activity (an example of the trend: movie theatre/tv/iPods) gets, the more disengaged from civil society individuals are becoming.  The trend inwards and our increased disenfranchisement mirrors the rise and fall of Capitalism pretty closely.

That’s the terrain that politics has to work with.  Political operatives will plant the seeds of ideas, attempt to nourish them with communications strategies, etc, but they always keep an eye out for weeds creeping on to their plot.  One of their most effective fertilizers comes in the form of attack ads.

Attack ads have always been a part of politics. Although many people find them distasteful, they work – particularly at motivating a Party’s standard base of support.  For people already leaning towards disengagement, though, attack ads offer a decent addition to the suite of justifications for staying home; voting takes time, I don’t know what’s going on, all politicians are the same anyway.  And the watering hole starts to shrink.

As the pool of viable voters dwindles, the political Parties look at each other funny.  Their tactics change – the focus shifts from enticing the mushy middle to solidifying the base.  The hyper-targeting of identified partisan voters reduces the broader, national policy conversation to covering the issues of the engaged almost exclusively.  This gives more cause for the average voter to tune out, evaporating a bit more of the available vote.   It also causes the Political Parties vying for power to target issues that resonate with viable voters more than those that don’t.  Then, there's the fact that a visibly deteriorating voter turnout lends itself to the idea that maybe voter suppression isn't a bad tactic to get ahead - it's the politics of outrunning the (polar) bear.

A lack of movement on the issues of the disengaged (poverty, for example, or the conditions of First Nation reserves or the plight of those with mental illness) doesn't help.  These concerns might get periodic lip service but don’t rest high on the policy agenda.  Frustration and disengagement increase; meanwhile as the Political Parties circle in, they find themselves nose to nose over scarce resources.  Maybe one Party decides to go for broke and wrest control of the whole thing.  As emotions grow stronger on both sides, the Parties involved take bigger risks.  They also rely more heavily on negative emotions to fuel their messages and engage their base.

Partisans come with built-in predispositions.  Party loyalties have an almost tribal quality to them.  This has always proven a challenge for Parties of the centre; a balanced policy approach produces superior results, but because it's practical, not emotional, evidence-based policy makes for a harder sell.  For those on the edges of the spectrum, though, polarization plays to their strengths.  The more worked up a Party’s base gets, the more they will donate, participate and vote.  The problem is, all that emotion lends itself to inflexibility, too.

So – the easier it is for some folk to justify not voting, the greater the chance of Political Parties narrowing their campaigns and policy focus towards those most likely to support them (their base).  The more directly the base is engaged, the more partisan they become – therefore, more likely to tout speaking points and standard perspectives.  What gets lost as the democratic watering hole shrinks?  Democracy, that’s what – along with all the diversity, innovation and collective problem-solving that comes with it.

We are currently living through a multi-level tragedy of the commons.  Our dilemma is being exacerbated by the "all's fair in love and war" approach of certain (but not all) political operatives; internally-focused Canadians are allowing our political system to erode; internally-focused Political Parties are allowing our system of Parliament to erode; a hyper-partisan government is eroding our democracy.

The lesson to be learned from this alarming chain of events (also playing out in many other nations) is simple – our very society and with it, our individual, long-term well-being are  at risk unless we start putting our collective well-being first. 

Every man for himself is not going to work.  We need to organize.  We need to figure out how we’re going to survive here. If we can’t live together, we’re gonna die alone.