As David Bowie sang...

Over the past few months on Raise the Hammer, I've been known to comment on threads that have to do with local governance. I don't tend to comment on actual issues much, mostly because often I feel I'm nowhere near equipped well enough to add to the discussion. I'm not a policy wonk, I don't have an understanding of many of the challenges of The Amalgamated City of Hamilton, and I believe fervently in 'rendering unto Caesar'. 

This goes hand-in-hand with my belief that discussion, discourse, dialogue are vital to improving our lot locally. This doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about things-Hamilton, but more that this often-strident opinionator feels more compelled to explore avenues to increase the aforementioned aspects of of engagement than championing a cause or a set of 'political values'. 

I've found myself regularly looking at remarks made by commenters, ones that point out how City Hall seems to be set up more to get the job done as seen by City staff and Counsellors than to actually elicit participation and feedback by residents and shape policy according to these, ones that point out the general apathy present in the populace, ones that bemoan the fact that 'engagement' with those charged with looking after the public good is seemingly-pointless...I find myself regularly looking at them and agreeing...and yet scratching my head at why it's not readily apparent to them that what's not working within the paradigm cannot be fixed within the paradigm...without making some wholesale changes. 

In other words, I liken it to complaining about how the company you work for is set up, about the inequities, about the drawbacks...and yet not appreciating that in order to 'make things better', you're probably going to have to find a better job. 

Or to being in a relationship that's just not satisfying, bitching about what doesn't turn your crank...and yet appearing ignorant of either having to genuinely work at making it better, or exiting and starting anew with someone else. 

In one of my comments, I predicted that 'our' revolution will actually have an impact on our lives equal to what's been accomplished elsewhere in the world in 2011. Except that it's going to happen so gradually as to be pretty much impossible to view on a news report. 

And that I see what's possible as being almost entirely predicated on innovations in technology...and yet, in the end, this 'revolution's' success being almost entirely dependent on innovations in humanity. Specifically the way in which we order our lives, what we see as being important. 

1) The technological innovations can be seen as: 

-Social media. (An interconnectedness never before witnessed.)

-Open data. (Access to previously difficult-to-access, or essentially unavailable data about our communities.)

-Availability of context and perspective. (The ability to make comparisons all the world over.)

-The phenomenal speed at which all of these are capable of being accessed.

2) The human element has to do with what I've previously referred to as a 'lifestyle change', where people see involvement and participation in their own governance as an integral part of their value system. Not as an obligation, but simply as something they do, in the same way that good parents don't see what they do as an 'obligation', but merely as something they believe in, an integral part of their value system. 

N.B. Without the second portion of this, nothing substantive will result. It would be like having scads of facilities providing physical fitness opportunities, but with little interest shown in using them...so they sit unused. Naturally, the hope is that a groundswell occurs, one in which how people see sustained engagement is informed by the tech advances, effectively 'inspiring' them. Or, facilitating their inspiration. 

Currently, the 'system' isn't designed to accommodate these changes. In fact, it's mostly resistant to them, it lags behind something awful in some regards. (In fairness, progress has been made in others.)

Worse than this, many of those involved in governance and management are ill-designed to accommodate these changes, too. Additionally, they too are resistant, lagging behind something awful in some regards. (Again, there are some who are better suited to executing their directives than others.)

Regardless, I don't see 'business as usual' as being possible much longer. 

Too much has changed. Many of the habits of 'politicians', their expectations, the processes by which governance is implemented are, in comparison to the accessible resources, simply unacceptable. And will be regarded even moreso as time grinds on. 

I predict that many 'politicians' will go kicking and screaming unquietly into that good night, simply unwilling or incapable of adaptation. (We're presently seeing signs of this in The Amalgamated City of Hamilton.)

Of course, in perverse lock-step with these realities (and equally perversely allowing a reprieve of sorts) is the habitual apathy of residents. It would be great if the citizenry became sufficiently enraged -quickly- to insist on engagement and thereby initiating all the faster what I've suggested. But it's doubtful this will happen; Like the man said, "Things don't tend to change unless there's either a) a crisis, or b) something 'sexier' is presented." So until people in the main see the benefits to their own daily existences of becoming integral parts of their own governance, they're going to stick to the 'sexier' option of a hands-off, laissez-faire attitude known as 'I voted, now leave me alone for the next four years!' 

Hope, however, springs eternal.