O3 - the Red Pill for Canadian Democracy

Take the blue smartie and this life continues forever and ever.

Take the red smartie, and I show you what progress really looks like.

If you've been frustrated with the current federal election, take heart - you aren't alone.  More and more people feel like Canadian politics is a closed box, and that citizens are little more than human resources whose purpose is seen as feeding the machine.

What if I were to tell you that this paradigm is changing?  

That the traditional hierarchy of government is being disrupted from without and from within?

That right now, in this very election, citizens have the power to shape the future of our country in ways never before imagined?

We've been living in a dream world, under the enforced illusion that only they have the power to keep our country from capsizing on troubled shores or sinking from a thousand leaks.

If you want to stay frustrated with the system and remain comfortably cynical, tune out.  Walk away.

                                                    There are many that want you to walk away.

If, on the other hand, you want to know what O3 is, click here.

Remember, though - we're only messengers.

Where we go from here... well, that choice has always been ours to make.

Polls: The Entrails of an Election

The poll questioned 2,343 people between Sept. 17 and Sept. 22 and is considered accurate to within two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

This poll is telling us that the Tories are way in the lead, with a majority within reach.  I say again, for emphasis: this poll.  Call it a snapshot of a percentage of one moment in time, if you will; it's one of many polls we've seen this election.  One or two of them are bound to be predictive in much the same way as a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Personally, I think the Conservatives are likely to land on top - not because a majority of Canadians think they have the best plan or see Stephen Harper as the embodiment of #CPCJesus.  Rather, they have more angry people in their base than discouraged ones, meaning they are more likely to vote, and donate, etc.  They will invest heavily of their time, money and speaking points to support the only party they feel will meddle less in their lives, cut their taxes, secure their freedom of speech.

That, plus the Conservatives have always had a more effective GOTV than its opponents.  And I feel comfortable in arguing, they have demonstrated more of a systematic willingness to do whatever it takes to win (whereas for the other parties, it's some individuals rather than the culture).

All that aside, though, political people are still following the polls, responding to the polls, trumping what bolsters their team and poo-pooing what doesn't.  It's a Pavolovian thing, I think - political people get the same sort of dopamine hit from a poll that other people get from checking their social media feeds.

If you collate all the polls after the dust settles, I'm sure you will find all kinds of interesting patterns. The entrails of #elxn42 will no doubt be carefully poured over by the sorts of people who do that, looking for lessons or trends and whatnot.

How reflective will those stories be of what actually happened on the ground, though?  On any given day, we've had polls that have placed each party on top and lagging behind, simultaneously.  They're all the result of surveys and such, so they're all true for a certain slice of society at a certain point in time... to a degree.  What's not revealed by these polls is how reflective respondents answers are of their actual opinions.  

When a server in a restaurant asks you "do you want white or red with that?" they're trying to nudge you to an answer; the hope is you will just choose from the options before you.  When a poll asks you which leader you like best, then who next when you remove your first choice, or which policy area concerns you the most, it is doing the same thing.

How many polls have the optional answer of None of the Above or I'm worried about them all equally, because they all affect me equally?  Or I don't know and don't care?

One of the biggest challenges for service providers, politicians, etc. in working in marginalized communities is trust, openness and authenticity.  This is for good reason; programs will run for short durations, promises won't be followed up on, or the external leader wading in will come across as White Saviour rather than community supporter.  It is very hard to earn trust when you're seen as part of the problem, and that with just cause.

When people don't trust you, they aren't open with you.  They aren't authentic with you; more than anything, they probably just want you to go away.

To an increasing degree, Canadians on the whole are feeling marginalized in our political process. Their elected representatives represent parties first, constituents second.  Engagement takes the form of donation asks or as backdrops for announcements rather than serious conversations.  Question Period has become insider baseball - more about scoring points and hits than properly debating the pros and cons of policy.

Polls are snapshots of a much larger story, much like touching the tail and pronouncing that the elephant is like a snake.  Elections are won or lost by parties, which is a much different beast than being the process by which the populace chooses the best governance for the country.

While I'm sure the entrails of this election will provide hours of joy for many backroomers, I really hope the parties and pollsters pay real attention to the mood of the nation after the election. 

Ultimately, this process isn't about the parties and who wins; it's about Canadians and the effectiveness of our democratic process.  That's not something determined by seeing how many people picked the white over the red.

Sad part is, it's going to be harder than ever to match voting patterns with demographics due to the death of the long-form census.  If millennial turnout is low, if new Canadian turnout is low, then we have a numbers challenge our polls aren't even hinting at.

When the majority of Canadians are neither represented by nor invested in a "majority" government, we've got a problem.

The Political Free Market: Bringing Down Under to the Great North (and some fresh air at the end)

And they're being urged to participate direclty in an effort to prevent the province from helping to elect a "risky" new government, according to a letter provided exclusively Monday to the Vancouver Sun.

"They" being select members of the B.C. business community, the kind of folk that Lynton Crosby wants to find a relevant message for.

Expect more of this ABC-style approach to political campaigning as the season-long #elxn42 lumbers forward into fall. Identify your target market - only your target market, not (pejorative minority group) - they aren't your people anyway - and then close that deal.  If you keep hammering at them, hitting the key emotional triggers and all that jazz, you'll push them into making a choice, and that choice will be in your favour.

Pretty simple, right?

You'd think so, at any rate.  Apparently not, though.  Despite having aggressive sales folk like Nick Kouvalis and comms whizes like Kory Teneycke at his service and despite having long-term loyalists like Jenni Byrne and, um, Chris Woodcock in his circle, Harper has decided to look further afield for the talent he needs to win this election.

It's not that, you know, he's ungrateful to his own people.  He simply realizes it's a tough election and he could very well lose, especially if his campaign can't get on the right course.  Staying the course isn't an option, because too much is not going his way.  If they're too risky to guarantee a win, you have to look at other options.

Which is what a lot of Canadians, including traditional Tory supporters, are doing.

Harper's people, meanwhile - they're all about the free market and against national protectionism. 

They won't be the slightest bit wounded or embittered about Harper's clear indication that he doesn't feel they're up to the job and preference for bringing in an Australian to do the job they are having trouble with.

Which is why Harper's whole team is surely embracing the simple message frame and proven track record of that Voldemort from Down Under, Lynton Crosby.

It doesn't matter whether he comes from up above or from Down Under, or how much skin he has in Canada's election.  It makes no difference whether the policies and messages he picks as winners for the target he identifies create headaches for non-Con market voters.  All that matters is that he can deliver the goods.

This got me thinking.

Harper's message is that the other guys - Trudeau and Mulcair, because he is loathe to mention Elizabeth May's name - are too risky.  You can't be sure they'll do a good job, and if they don't, fire and brimstone will ensure from the ruptures that will form in the earth, sucking all that is good and traditional down the drain (like manufacturing jobs and the forest industry).

Thing is, though, Harper hasn't done so hot himself.  He's continued and exacerbated the trend of poisoning the democratic well for partisan gain; he's made a mess of relations with provinces, the media and countless stakeholder groups; un- and under-employment are on the rise, aboriginal women are still going missing, pipelines are still pipe dreams, etc.  

Can we really count on Harper to do anything other than what he's been doing already?  That's what his campaign seems to suggest - more of the same, when that simple hasn't been good enough.

It's a bit risky, isn't it?

Maybe Harper has provided us with the extra option we needed.  Perhaps we don't need to limit ourselves to the risky choices before us - Harper didn't, and as leader he sets the example, doesn't he?

There's no rule that says Canada's Prime Minister has to be an elected official.  To be honest, the office of PM is one of convention, not one of legislation, so we have all kinds of flexibility on how to fill the role.

To keep things moderately in-house, though, what we could do is look at honourary Canadian citizens to fill this honourable role.

Here are some options:

   Karim Aga Khan IV

   Malala Yousafzai

  Aung San Suu Kyi

 and my personal choice:

   The Dalai Lama

Can you imagine how awesome Question Period would be if the Dalai Lama was giving the answers?

Of course, we don't have to look abroad to find the best fighters to conquer electorates, or to fight off our political representatives. That's another thing that's become convention, but is not and does not have to be the rule.

Perhaps instead of looking abroad for people to fight his battles for him, Harper should look to the past for some advice on what it means to be Public Servant #1, as the Prime Minister should be:

“Public service reminds us all that there exists a genuine concept of the public good in the broad public interest. While we value individual liberty and protect it, as Canadians we also maintain a strong tradition of the public good — that is, what is good for society as a whole, on balance, taking into account disparate interests and adopting the longer view.”

- the Honourable Jim Flaherty, 2011

As for the rest of us - maybe we have to stop waiting for someone to solve our social ailments. Maybe we have always had the ability ourselves, and just needed the opportunity and encouragement.

Now's the time for something different.

A Shift In Power

Warren Kinsella: Ipso facto, voters have misgivings about all of the parties.  So, none of the parties is definitively ahead.

The rest of Kinsella's analysis talks about how the Convervatives will become competitive again, with the focus being on someone eventually becoming the people's choice.  That's how the system works, isn't it?  You gotta have a government, it's gonna be a party, so it's just a matter of choice.

Martin Regg Cohn: Canadians everywhere — everyone, it seems, except the federal government — are moving into that political vacuum. A lack of leadership and an absence of empathy have left the field wide open for others to respond decisively at every level of government, and especially at ground level.

This in response to an emerging reality:

An urgent humanitarian response is only human, but it is not enough. We must also reduce the causes of mass migrations (conflict and chaos), and avoid making those migrations even more dangerous (by tempting people to start a stampede) because people will die in the crush, drown on the high seas, suffocate in sealed trucks.

See, we can't keep playing the starfish-throwing game and patting ourselves on the back righteously - it isn't enough.  

The world is changing - literally - and it's impacting us all in more pervasive ways than at least we in the West are used to.

Which means that the way governance works needs to change and adapt.  As happens always, it's an organic process - as existing systems fall behind need, others step up to fill their place.

We live in interesting times...

Shocked - Shocked! by Party Membership Buying

 

Party officials acknowledged that Edmonton–Mill Woods resident Varinder Bhullar was not their preferred candidate, but they told The Huffington Post Canada they barred him from contesting the nomination only after an audit found that he had violated party rules by signing up a significant number of people who did not pay for their own memberships.

 

“The man cheated. He was caught. And it was a pretty flagrant violation,” a Liberal party official said, insisting on anonymity.

 

 

I'm actually happy this anonymous Liberal party official has spoken up against the practice of memberships being paid for by third parties.  It's too bad they didn't use their name, though - but I can hazard a guess as to why that might be the case.

 

Here's a dirty little secret, one of many in the political closet - this happens all the time.  All the time.  I've had more than one chat with highly successful political operatives - the ones who get party phone calls to come in and put campaigns in order - where they will smile and say they don't really see this as a moral issue, simply a PR issue.

 

Politics is war, after all - people don't like war, they don't like to hear what happens in war, but they're not exactly rushing out to put their own skin in the game, are they?  If they're not willing to stand up, then the next best thing they can do is stay out of the way of the big boys and girls willing to do what it takes to win.

 

I have no knowledge of this specific campaign, or any of the candidates involved, nor any of the interactions with the Party.  What I would comfortably hazard a guess on, though, is that this buying of memberships thing was selected as the "official" reason to block Bhullar from getting the nod.  It's simple, easy to explain, makes the rejection of the guy they don't like (or removal of opposition to the one they do like) look like a moral victory instead of a cynical tactical play.

 

This being the case, one would assume the Party worked doubly hard to make sure there was no chance of any evidence being available that could suggest their preferred candidate, Amarjeet Sohi, had played the same game.  After all, if it came to light that their preferred candidate played just as dirty as the one they openly dejected, it might make them look hypocritical, right?

 

If all this is accurate and the "shocked, shocked to find their is gambling going on in this establishment" play is being used as a one-off in this one particular contest, it's fair to think that this level of moral scrutiny may not be as present in other ridings.  Meaning that if it came to light that any of the Centre's green-lit candidates had equally committed the moral outrage of blatant vote-buying, the Party should rush to flush each of them out the door.

 

All of this is symptomatic of a bigger problem, however - the overall ill-health of our electoral system.  If Parties are arranging for preferred candidates to get in and bribing/threatening others to stand down, what message do green-lit candidates take from this?  How much is their fate tied to pleasing the Party vs representing constituents?

 

Independents don't win.  You need Party brand to have access to the press, to debates, to resources and templates and seasons campaign teams, etc. 

 

So people don't win - Parties do.  Parties that want to form government.  Parties that place their leader at the top of a rigid hierarchy.  Leaders who rely on unelected inner-councils to do the real administration work of the Party and of government to ensure Party interests are maintained.

 

It's a system of government, this - just not a democratic one.  It can't last.

 

 

 

Brand Humanization: Whose Party is It, Anyway?

 

People join social communities because they have a purpose, an intent, and communities let them act on their intent. They are looking for a place to be (Facebook), a place to learn (Google+, Pinterest), a place to interact (Twitter).

 

 

In my Inbox rests a political donation solicitation letter titled "are you in?"  It is not designed to create a community.  It does not encourage participation, does not provide an opportunity for learning or growth and certainly isn't a place to interact.

 

Unless, of course, be participation and interaction you mean giving money.

 

The voter/donation solicitation process is supposed to work thusly:

 

-  you Big Data your way towards an understanding of what people are hungry for

-  you put your smart people in a room to come up with some ideas with an eye towards differentiation (not solution)

- you focus-group and hone your messaging

- you use it, your candidates and local issues as a way to ID potential voters

- you "touch" those potentials a minimum of three times to turn your leads into commitments (vote, volunteer, donor potential) and then hammer them until they do all three.

 

See what's missing in this picture?

 

There's no community. It's not social. 

 

Back to the letter in my box.

 

And I'll, answer the question on everybody's mind: Will we have enough money to win?

 

- on whose mind?  It's definitely not on mine.  In fact, I was never asked what was on my mind.

 

Our victory will depend on raising the maximum amount of campaign funds.  It's really simple, your donation will help us reach more voters, by putting more organizers on the ground, more callers on the phone, inspire more volunteers and help us knock on more doors.

 

- who is referred to by "our" in this?  I don't feel it reflects me.  I don't feel like my contributions are desired.  There's no opportunity in here for me to learn, nor participate and really be part of something, like the our community.  They only want my money.  They are using ABC pressure tactics to get me to give it to them.  I feel kind of used.

 

During the final push, your donation will determine how many undecided voters we can identify.

 

Now I feel like I'm being squeezed out.  Without even lying that they'll call me later, they're rushing off to identity the next crop of people to be used.

 

This isn't community.  This is the opposite of community.

 

Now, for the opening sentence of the letter that I left out:

 

Later today, I'll head to a meeting with the senior campaign team.

 

By everyone, the writer meant the campaign team.  By our, the writer meant the campaign team.

 

Not the party, nor the member, not even the Member.  We aren't part of their "our" and we aren't wanted.  They matter; what they do, how they recruit, all of that is way more important than we are.  Our role is to give them money and get out of their way.

 

Politics is sales and the pie can only be cut so many ways.  Therefore, it's competition.  You're with us, you're against us or you don't matter.

 

Keeping that in mind, take a look at these MP exit interviews.  Consider the reality of civic disengagement and distrust of our politics.

 

Then, consider this:

 

What I'd like to do now is double down on Kent's claim that 2015 will be the year of the social contract (See: The Social Contract). To take a moment to remind you that you have an active role in shaping the continuing evolution of that social contract by cultivating relationships, engaging others and creating the narratives you want to work in, live in and play in.

 

I've shared that post a dozen times.  I've tweeted about it, promoted the event that's mentioned at the end of the post and shared variations on this theme from my own unique voice.

 

I haven't given Nick a red cent, but he's gotten a lot of free labour out of me, and intellectual property.  So have you, if you read anything I right.

 

It doesn't matter what colour their big tent is - they're not going to let you onto the stage to dance anyway.

 

If you want to join the real party, you don't need to pay to get into the tent.  It costs nothing to dance in the open.

 

Over the Heads: At Least Baird's Consistent

 

 

Baird said it's Canada's latest foray into the field of "direct diplomacy," a strategy to bypass repressive regimes and reach out directly to people in countries that do not allow free debate.

 

Why does this sound familiar?  Oh riiight:

 

"We'll go over the heads of the members of Parliament; go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General; go right to the Canadian people."

 

I guess it's a good thing Baird's consistent, but it strikes me as concerning that he wants to treat Canada's elected Parliament and the government of Iran. 

 

The connective tissue seems to be that Baird wants to talk directly to people without peer critique of his message.

 

There are governments out there who block people's access to information, monitor them excessively and penalize them if they speak against the prevailing ideology.

 

Then there are governments who simply stop the collection and analysis of information, but still monitor people excessively and penalize them for speaking against the prevailing ideology by firing, defunding or simple intimidation.

 

It strikes me that all around, we have too much talking to and talking at going on; instead of actual communication, messaging and spin are the order of the day.

 

That has to change.  It's going to change.  It's changing already.

 

Do you hear the people sing?  (in a unified chorus, no less)

 

I just hope that the John Bairds of the world are listening.

Emperors Don't Follow Laws

 

 

Mr. Perrin said the government’s biggest concern from its year of overwhelming defeats will be that its agenda is grinding to a halt. If that agenda “continues to be unravelled by the courts, it’s actually not governing the way that it wants to. It’s also politically quite embarrassing, and if people begin to think that the government is not understanding what the law is, and it’s not able to govern effectively, that becomes a very serious concern.”

 

I know I'm not the only one who feels far too many members of the Harper government (both elected and non-elected) feel that, because they are top dogs, they rest above the law.  They make them for other people and are held to a different standard, one they themselves set.  It's reminiscent of Karl Rove:

 

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality... We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

 

Call me sensationalist, if you feel the urge.  I can point to many, many sources of evidence to support my argument.  They can all be summed up in one line:

 

"We'll go over the heads of the members of Parliament; go over the head, frankly, of the Governor General; to right to the Canadian people." 

 

A government committed to democratic engagement recognizes that Parliament, a free press and independent courts are fundamental pillars of a democratic system.  Such a government, when faced with repeated opposition to their approach, would self-reflect a bit and consider if they need to change the way they operate.

 

This isn't how Harper's government has ever operated.  Faced with opposition, they don't compromise; they double-down, attack, do whatever they can to get their opponents to back down so that they may win. 

 

Lina Keene they could can; not-for-profits they can defund; they get more ink that Carol Todd, so reframing her positions to fit their narrative and then shutting her out is easy.  The media can be side-stepped, and has been. 

 

And yet the Supreme Court has been doggedly defiant of the Conservative Empire.  This is problematic, because opposition to their agenda, in their eyes, makes them look weak. 

 

The courts, however, aren't so easily suppressed or manipulated.  At least, not yet.

 

And that should be of serious concern to all of us.

#cdnpoli: We Can Never Go Back to Before

There are people out there
Unafraid of revealing
That they might have a feeling,
Or they might have been wrong.
There are people out there
Unafraid to feel sorrow,
Unafraid of tomorrow,
Unafraid to be weak...
Unafraid to be strong!
There was a time
When you were the person in motion.

We can never go back to before.
 

No one — well, no one worth heeding — would ever propose going back to the chummy, clubby culture of secrecy that allowed the halls of Parliament Hill to become a hunting ground for sexual predators. We also don't want to discourage those who believe themselves to have been victimized by those same sexual predators from speaking out.

 

If we can't go backwards, where do we go from here?

 

And yes, that's a trick question.  I just wanted to get it out in the open.

 

Crie de Coeur for Culture Change in Politics

 

 

I should never have weighed on an issue as sensitive as that without taking the time to hear the other side of the story.

 

A powerful, insightful piece into the closed, messy world of politics that anyone who's worked in that space will recognize.

 

I picked the one quote above because Copps is absolutely right - we all tend to be too rash in judgment without taking the time to get informed.  I myself have been on both sides of this equation.  Empathy is not a human strong suit and in politics, it's often seen as a liability.

 

So, confession time to lay the scene appropriately - I am not and will not claim to be holier than anyone.  I have unintentionally crossed lines, misread cues and equally been left in vulnerable positions by people with power to impact my career.  I am also guilty of weighing heavy judgment on people under whom I did have some degree of authority and, in trying to put a cause or brand first, have done harm.

 

Unlike a Rob Ford, though, I'm not content to rest on my human failings as a permanent crutch; I aspire to be better.  It keeps me busy.

 

In general, though, politics isn't about being a better person - it's mostly about winning, a lot about knocking down the other guy and somewhere in the mix is something about public good.  The biggest problem with politics, and moreso as broadcast tools like television and especially social media have entered the fray, is an obsessive need to control the narrative.

 

Enter spin.  Spin isn't lying; it's about framing the truth.  As in, selecting which aspects of the truth get focus and wish don't.  Not telling the whole truth isn't the same thing as flat-out lying; it's more like half-lying.

 

A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies, has forgotten where he's put it.

 

Politics is like no other field of work out there.  Politicians spend much of their time away from home, playing roles that aren't clearly defined.  They have actually job descriptions, but they don't match the reality of the roles they play.  Even when they do a good job, they can expect to be criticized.  Job performance is, ultimately, measured by just one thing - the ability to win seats.  A retail politician who accomplishes nothing other than perpetual wins is a success, even if they fail their constituents (ie, Rob Ford).

 

Politicians are employers, although their loyalties are divided between parties, constituencies and their own ambitions.  Staff likewise have to find balance between serving their masters, serving the constituents who elected their masters, serving the political parties that have no mandate over their work but existential control of their careers.

 

And none of these folk receive training in the basics of their work - payroll, HR management, project management, facilitation, etc.

 

Many elected officials like it this way - a lack of structural clarity gives them more absolute control over their staff, a poor-practice reality enabled by parties that don't really care what happens in offices, so long as wins are achieved and boats aren't rocked. 

 

In many ways, politicians are like "the talent" - the really good ones have electric personalities, can sell a message with vigour and are masterful at raising funds and winning seats.  Big personalities tend to come with big liabilities, though - some of the most "effective" talent among politicians and staffers can be abusive, manipulative and cruel. 

 

These aren't great traits to have in a collaborative, cohesive workplace.  In fact, such personalities are toxic to high performance and effective work.  Politics isn't about collaboration, though - it's a blood sport.  Party players will attack each other; internally, backs are perpetually stabbed.  Schoolyard gossips reigns supreme.

 

All this before you get to the outside influences.  Everyone wants to curry favour or pick fights with politicians; some of the shrewd players will try to get their hooks into staff, winning inside operatives.  In addition to the pressure to be all things to all people, never mess up despite not having training to know what a good job looks like, politicians and their staff are constantly exposed to free booze, ego-stroking lobbyists, threatening advocates and angry constituents.  There is little praise in politics, unless blatantly strategic.

 

It's a tragic irony that the environment in which our public policy gets made is often among the most toxic workplaces there is.  How focused on doing policy right can all of these people be if so much of their day-to-day existence is focused on the perks and perils of life in politics?

 

If you're using half your concentration to control the narrative, then you're only half-paying attention to whatever else you're doing.

 

Which is in no small part why we, the public, hate our politicians.  We see the bad behaviour, we recognize spin for what it is and become disgruntled.  It has never been the case that people are sheeple or that we have short memories; rather, it's that we see no alternative to dealing with the bad boys that swell the ranks of politics and, therefore, choose not to engage at all.

 

Political culture is toxic; politics attracts strong personalities and egos; citizens don't much pay attention regardless and when we offer criticism, it's rarely constructive.

 

This is not a system that can continue, uninterrupted, as it is, no matter what the successful, aggressive political people tell us.  They're like natural resource extractors, half-convincing themselves that things will never change. 

 

We are all of us standing on the burning platform.  Poor political choices and general civic disengagement are letting the toxicity of our Parliaments creep into every corner of our world.  The blatant racism we experienced in the recent municipal campaign is just a taste of what's to come, if something doesn't change.

 

It's no good getting mad at the aggressive alphas of politics - they win because we let them and succeed because, frankly, there's no alternative.

 

It's crucial to call attention to the abuses that happen within the system - sexual assaults, bullying, negligence, abuse of the public purse, etc. - but it's equally important to recognize tough reactive measures aren't going to stop bad behaviour, merely drive them underground.  The walls will become that much more opaque, exacerbating the problem.

 

Jian Ghomeshi became #ghomeshi because, for decades, no one intervened.  We can get made at him and demand justice, but what really matters is that we learn from how this happened with empathy (the understanding of emotion, not the enabling of it) and apply lessons across the board to prevent future Ghomeshis, and Patrick Brazeaus, and Mike Duffys and Dean del Mastros from happening.

 

This is the crie part - tell me if you've heard this refrain before.  The truth is that we don't know what we're doing.  We don't understand why we choose not to recognize the harm we often do.  Tough bosses who bully their employees often think they're doing them a favour; victims of harassment that don't take it are seen as disruptive to the culture instead of being victims or, worse, are applauded for standing up for themselves.

 

Remember the whole "women should golf" thing?  Ever heard the phrase "eat what you kill" in terms of business or "dog-eat-dog world" in relation to any sector?

 

It's laissez-faire culture; throw the kids in the deep end and reward the ones that survive, even if it's by forcing others under.  We have a culture that encourages aggressive competition, a focus on sales and those without power proving themselves to those with.  Yet we have a growing recognition of such power imbalances lending themselves towards abuse.

 

The two ends cannot hold.  If we want a survival-of-the-most-competitive, the very nature of that culture encourages abuses.  How else do you cull the weak?

 

Which is why, in my view, political culture keeps getting more and more toxic and will continue to do so while the status quo holds. 

 

We cannot expect the people within the system to be the sole progenitors of change; the toxicity of our political culture is like lead poisoning, but it's society as a whole that's put the lead in the pipe.

 

There is a desperate need for culture change in politics; through open government initiatives, there's even a movement to catalyze such change.  It cannot and will not happen in a climate of disaffection, bitterness and even rage; people on the inside rightly feel the need to protect themselves from the mob. 

 

We need to be more than a mob if we want change.  We have to be more than passive audiences or reactionary forces.

 

We cannot do this if we remain committed to passing judgment, placing blame and seeking vengeance.  Such does not move us forward.

 

There is a way to move out of our spiral down the drain of civility, but it cannot come without a deep recognition that the problem isn't external, but internal.

 

None of us are blame-free, nor are any of us strictly victims or perpetrators. 

 

Until we recognize this basic truth, none of us are free.

 

New World Capitalism and the Open People

Increasingly the corporate world is concluding that business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing.

There are many narratives emerging in the world.  The negative ones dominate our headlines - corruption, abuse of power, frightening manipulation of the truth, our democratic system, the law, etc.  And of course, war, disease, the Zombie Apocalypse in the form of fundamentalist terrorism.

 

That's the dark winter threatening to overtake us - the collapse of civilization under the weight of its own failings.

 

It's not all storm clouds, though - there is, as always, a silver lining - points of light emerging where you least expect them.

 

What yesterday would have been revolutionaries, trying to burn the system down are today Virtuous Schemers, Hari Seldons of the 21st Century.  Like Irish monks or Islamic scholars of old, they are persevering the best of what came before and experimenting with new ways of thinking, communicating, organizing and thriving.

 

That bastion of stagnation, the bureaucracy, is a petri dish of civic disruption at all levels one finds dedicated, disruptive public servants who view what they do as a calling, but a comfort zone.  They are changing everything in slow fits and spurts, but aided from all corners of the nascent Open Community.

 

Some of the best ideas and most powerful voices for collaboration and shared solutions aren't coming from politicians or leaders of the not-for-profit or even religious sector, but from every day folk uninhibited by old standards of success.  These community catalysts are the Open People - they could be your neighbour, or your colleague, or your employer.  And that's a good thing.

 

It can look awfully bleak, our future - like the only way out is through fire and brimstone.  Such is not the case.

 

But then, it never is, is it?

The Whistle Stops Here: Where's the Referee in Parliament?

 

He also noted that commenting on "the character or actions of the Speaker" - like, for instance, "an allegation of bias" - "could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly."

 

 

I'm no expert on Parliamentary proceedings.  Like most Canadians, I think Parliament is proceeding very poorly.  Questions aren't answered, information is not shared, legitimate requests are shot down with school-yard retorts.

 

When the Leader of the Official Opposition asks a question about Canada's military commitment overseas, gets a snide come-back instead of anything approximating a legitimate answer and the only answer the Speaker can provide is "hey, don't look at me" - then something is decidedly wrong with the system.

 

It's not the Speaker's job to hold government to account - that's Parliament's job.  The problem is that Parliament is government - the party with the majority of seats, anyway.  Or in theory.  Truth be told it's a select few cabinet ministers, the PM and a retinue of unelected partisans who actually shape the agenda.

 

Accountability has left the building.  The referee is looking after his own interests.  The enforcers now own the rink - and they're not interested in playing the game, but in knocking out the competition.  The audience is an afterthought.

 

The question is, how do we get accountability back?

 

There's only one way, really - the audience has to step up from the sidelines and demand better.

 

The Death of Parliament

"I can understand the confusion - we are talking about the Middle East, and we're on the I's, but we're talking about Iraq," Mulcair said before asking a follow-up to his first unanswered question - this time, on the number of Canadian soldiers on the ground in Iraq today.

 

The purpose of Parliament is to hold Government - the Queen and her Ministers - to account.  That's why Parliament exists; MPs represent constituents and hold government to account on their behalf.

 

Yet here we have a government formed from the political party with the most MPs in the House, elected by a minority of eligible voters in Canada, essentially giving the finger to Parliament.

 

Our representatives.

 

Asked a serious question about a war that Canada is engaging in - one which will have repercussions for Canadian families and may result in retaliatory strikes on Canadian soil - the Prime Minister's errand boy retorts with, in essence, "I'm the king of the castle and you're the dirty rascal."

 

Even worse - the Speaker, who's job it is to keep Parliament functioning properly, has clearly decided he know which side his bread is buttered on.  The arbiter of the people's interest has sided with the king.

 

That's how this government responds to Parliament - with contempt.  They do not feel beholden to Parliament; if anything, they see Parliament as a straw man.  One can't but feel bad for Peter Milliken.

 

I don't care how you feel about Tom Mulcair, the NDP or for that matter, the governing Conservatives - if you condone this sort of practice or "don't care" about the functioning of Parliament, then you frankly don't care about democracy.  Or how the PM spends our money.  Or how he puts our soldiers, and ourselves, at risk.

 

We are sold propaganda; legitimate criticism is shot down, defunded or accused of treason.  Yet it's us who have decided we can't see the short-term ROI on getting informed and getting engaged.

 

Such is not democracy.  Our Prime Minister has become king; we let it happen.

 

That is the price we pay for indifference.

 

The Demise of Civil Canada

And they worry it could lead to the end of candour in federal politics, with wary politicians reduced to mouthing platitudes and reciting carefully scripted talking points.

But the Conservatives are making no apologies.

Or saying nothing at all, while paid spokespeople or dropped ads become the only vehicle for message to be sent, with no equivalent existing for input to be received.

This not to say it's a shift unique to the Conservatives; the "contact sport" that is politics has become increasingly aggressive and mean-tactic heavy.  Contact, by the way, refers to hitting opponents, not engaging with constituents.

Of course there are no apologies; apologies are for the weak.  Real men, or mannish women, hit hard, take no quarter, and as they are always in the right, are justified in doing whatever it takes to beat back the heathens at the gate.

If anyone calls into question their tactics, it's simply an indication that those self-same tactics are effective.  

Call Team Harper Nixonian all you want - they'll think of you as sore losers.  Nixon didn't get away with it, they'll say, but we did.  Clearly, we're better than he was.

This is not a democratic approach.  This is not about "exposing true feelings" or even about policy.  What's pushing these increasingly aggressive political players is the desire for power, not love of the leader.

Leaders look to their own self-interest, collect teams that do the same, and so on down the chain it goes. That's what a sociology-free government looks like; Sun News in the House of Commons.

Lest you think that's a universal condemnation, there are many who see that as a positive.  It's only in angry reaction, don't you know, that true selves are revealed, right?

Here is the heart-breaking, maddening irony.  When anything you do is right, and any attack that comes from opposition is only evidence of how powerful you truly are, you lose sight of the big picture and your place in it.  The tactics you use become increasingly shocking, simply because that's the nature of escalation.

It's the exact same spectrum that ISIS is on - they too are about power, instilling fear in their foes through harsh tactics and taking what they want simply because they can.

What happens when powers equally focused on destroying their foes and with no introspection about their purpose and the social impact of their action come head-to-head?  

Massive amounts of money gets spent on the weapons of war, ranging from robocalls, troll armies and attack ads to real troops throwing real grenades.  The severity of collateral damage follows suit.  The basics of italicization fall away, because they are all matters of sociology.

War is the worst time to commit sociology, right?  Your opponent isn't to be understood, but eliminated by brutal force, full stop.  This is the mind-set of the people wielding power who can't be bothered to understand their enemy and are so trapped by their egos they are incapable of understanding themselves. 

And so the only option they know and embrace is escalation.

That's where we're at, internationally.  That's what we're creeping towards, domestically.

These folk haven't won.  They've set fire to our common ground without realizing that wherever their heads are at, their feet stand on the same earth.

Hope exists in unlikely places, but there's a creeping darkness overtaking our politics.

Fall's coming and, as always, winter isn't far behind.