The Great Political 'Engagement' Conundrum, Part Three

Perhaps the greatest leap from what we currently accept as 'how things should be' regarding the compact between our councillors and ourselves and to what I'm referring to as the 'relationship of engagement' is the notion that not only should our elected officials be accountable to us, but we should be accountable to them.

Why?

Well, the most common complaint that I've heard regarding both local politics and Toronto politics and where I was in England for the better part of a decade has to do with contact and communication with the officials. Not being available. Not returning calls. Not delivering on what was promised during the election campaign...but this isn't a reference to policy promises, it's about actually supporting a dialogue. You know, that process by which things get hashed-out, agreed to, where common purpose is defined?

This problem with this approach to the broken model is that it is either stupid or naïve to place all the responsibility on the shoulders of one half of the dance team. It does, of course, take two to tango.

So as I've been suggesting, it's contingent upon the constituents to not only be willing 'dance partners' (sorry for the mixed analogies), but moreover, impassioned ones.

Assuming we could get to that place, shift behaviour so that people would feel that interaction and engagement wasn't so much an obligation as part of a lifestyle (the 'How?'s of which I'll get to in Part Four), what would it look like?

Well, before I get into specifics, allow me to first address a pet-peeve and point out an obvious: this is 2010. Those councillors who are still sending out newsletters and flyers to keep their constituents connected, um... Ya might want to upgrade from your 8-tracks to cassettes to CDs and finally to MP3s, if ya get my drift. (At the same time, please don't confuse social networking -Twitter, Facebook- with substantive communication. Great for election campaigns, crap for genuine connection on matters of importance. Nothing called a 'tweet' can sustain anything aligned with improving quality of Life. And yes, I will wrassle over that point.)

Town Halls

I don't believe in just tossing information around. You know; memos. Pamphlets. Newspaper commentary pieces. Fliers. Those sorts of things. People who believe that this is 'communicating' don't get it. Period. Especially if we're talking about an entity that goes well beyond the size of a company (where memos are standard), when we're talking a sizable geographic area such as a ward.

If it's engagement you're aiming for, then you need face-to-face events. You need the right venue, something that expresses the intent of the interlude, you need structure, you need topics, issues, concerns...and you need your primary participants, the councillors and the public. Unfortunately, because of the distrust that so many constituents have for their representatives, most people aren't up to speed where it comes to open dialogue. But in time, I'm sure that once a regular tradition is in place, the exchanges between the councillors and their residents would improve. As in any relationship, there has to be both sincerity of intent, and effort applied.

Web Halls

Like I said, this is 2010. There's a whole world of technology out there at our fingertips. There is no reason whatsoever that councillors can't use what's available to take themselves to the people, and bring the people to them in simple and expedient ways. Those who learn to utilize technology will benefit. Those who don't...

E-newsletters

This isn't a contradiction from my opening salvo against Luddites. As a means of augmenting a healthy and robust 'live-and-in-person' relationship, electronic updates can be effective. Best of all, they're environmentally aware, and they have the added advantage of potentially being more up-to-the minute, almost ridiculously updatable.

Message Boards

Clearly, if what you want is to keep your finger on the pulse of your ward, why wouldn't you encourage a healthy spirit of debate? Even if it merely produces the result wherein you can understand and appreciate the various schisms within your constituency, it's a means of engagement. (I'm not proposing that councillors get involved in flame-wars. More providing the opportunity for others to discuss.)

Field trips

There's nothing like getting amongst the residents, going into the ward and meeting, greeting, mingling. But it works the other way, too; bringing the constituents into City Hall to gain a better understanding of how things work, to appreciate that nothing works in isolation, how commiseration and negotiation aren't sometime things, they're ongoing, neverending. (Oh, and I'm not talking about a 'tour'. I'm talking about the councillors being inclusive with the people that voted them in. This is not an 'empty gesture', just as collaborating with your spouse on a special project shouldn't be. Through all these suggestions, I'm talking about actual engagement, not paying lip service.)

As a final note here, I want to address the need for the tone, the very profile of what a 'councillor' is be redefined. But while I'm stressing the need for more engagement, both on the politicians' parts and on the constituents', I'm not suggesting a new 'compact amongst equals' be created.

Our politicians are our leaders. Make no mistake about it, they're in place in order to fulfill the wishes and demands of those who voted them into office, but to my way of thinking, they ought to serve a particular function. As John C. Maxwell said, "A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way." The vast majority of people (myself included, without reservation) want to be led. More precisely, they want to be heard, they want to be inspired, then they want to be led well. They want to be able to place their trust in their leaders, and have them do what they're -hopefully- best equipped to do: lead. So even if we have a vast improvement in engagement between elected officials and the residents of the city, I hope that our councillors always provide the best leadership possible.

Next up: The migration from disinterested/disengaged residents to ones who regard participation in the political process as a part of their commitment to community.