Solutions vs Answers: A Perspective on a 'Relationship of Engagement', Second Half

Returning to my original riff on 'solutions' vs 'answers', if we look at the dissatisfaction that so many people in Hamilton feel about this particular Council's performance over the past four years, in addition to say, the past two decades, there have to be identifiable elements that have rankled people.

The ''answer' would be to what? Enforce some kind of 'readiness for service' standard so that more qualified people are up for election? Do a better job of injecting higher management standards by enacting more strident rules and regulations? Mandating structured information flow to constituents? Setting in stone 'accountability and transparency' edicts? I guess the list could go on and on...but seriously, none of this stuff has ever seemed to work...and let's face it: things aren't getting any better.

And the 'solution'? To me that would mean leaving the 'elected officials' side be, and addressing the other side of the equation. This would insist on a change to the way Councillors see their function, preventing as many of the 'negative processes' that seem to invariably unfold. I don't believe that an apathetic, disengaged, detached, disinterested 'clientele/boss' (that is, the voting populace) promotes a particularly proficient and functional City Council.

And I have to ask: is it just me, or is there something decidedly perverse about the idea of the dynamic that's been in place for God-knows-how-long? It's like all this faith is placed in those-who-serve by those-who-really-can't-be-bothered...and then when the Councillors don't get it right, these same folk whinge and go ballistic.

Take a look at some of the splattered rhetoric online these days. Calls for 'voting the bums out'. Insistence that we need to 'sweep away all the garbage'. Belief that fresh blood, new ideas are required, that the herd must be culled.

And yet most of these people...and by 'most' I mean nearly every commenter whose 'gifts' I've taken the time to read...haven't really got a qualitative clue, can't cite examples to warrant their vitriol...and is probably happy as a porc dans la merde to remain in this state of bliss-filled righteous indignation, rather than take the time to generate a qualified opinion. Still, they vehemently point to the Councillors, demonizing them, as if they come from an entirely different gene pool.

No, I don't believe that a new crop of politicians is the answer.

Nor do I believe that better guidelines, stricter rules and regulations governing Councillors' behaviour are, either.

But I do believe the 'solution' is to effect a societal change so that the public doesn't just vote, then wash its hands of the responsibility of good governance for four years, but rather assumes its rightful role in this process. Not out of mandated obligation, but out of a sense of richly-held duty.

You know, the way that great parents do what they do. Not because they've been forced to, but because it's how they're compelled to.

The way that fit, active healthy people who live by a motto such as 'Cook fresh food. Be active. Have fun,' live their lives. Not because they're obeying legislation, but because they feel drawn to these habits.

The way that financially responsible people live within their means, don't overextend themselves, and find joy and contentment in Life that's not contingent on acquiring anything...other than great experiences.

These states of awareness on various levels are examples of what I'm talking about regarding a 'relationship of engagement' in the arena of local governance.

And once again, not to flog a dead horse, it begins with respect.