Could it be that the very notion of actual 'engagement' frightens the Hell out of elected officials?
Could it be that the existing paradigm...especially for the Mayor...of having both a figurative and real bulwark between them and those whom they serve, whom they work for, whose greater good they are paid to strive towards, isn't something they want to change?
Could it be that election campaigns with all their 'public forum' appearances, all the glad-handing and question-answering provide sufficient trials and tribulations for Councillors and our Mayor, that the notion of having more of these challenges and travails, worse, of having them at regular intervals throughout their term is enough to make them blanch?
Could it be that as much as the public sees their role in local governance as being 'vote every four years and hope for the best between elections', Councillors and the Mayor want the same thing, only their phrasing is 'vote me in and then leave me to do my job, thankyouverymuch'?
I think that most people, when considering who the most effective manager, supervisor or teacher has been in their lives, will offer up someone who was involved. Who interacted. Who enquired, who listened, who responded. Yes, great decisions were undoubtedly part of the package. But I doubt that 'great decision maker' would be the predominant factor in place them in the Hall of Fame. It would more likely be fairness, someone who was inspiring, someone who empowered them. And these qualities are delivered by contact.
People endemically want to be led. They want to feel the security of placing confidence in someone, and having that confidence justified on the journey that the leader is...well, leading.
The funny thing is that despite modern life having injected so much cynicism and negativity and distrust that the word is now bordering on a pejorative, we do refer to politicians as our 'leaders'. Regularly.
Now, I'm not suggesting that 'back in the day', politicians were trusted emphatically; I don't believe that state of affairs has ever existed, in toto. But in a strange way, there was more transparency 'back then'. Or, maybe what I'm referring to was actual physical contact. You could look someone in the eye, shake their hand and you knew. You just...knew. And maybe because the only real means of electronic dissemination was radio and newspaper, it wasn't such a leap to have 'appearances' whereby the residents and the elected official had chances to have contact. (Let's not suggest in counter-argument modern fund-raisers. People with money don't need more opportunities to 'get to know their public servants'. They've already gotten their lobbying energies focused.)
In this segmented, detached world of ours, we've lost that genuine, in-person contact. (No, I don't see Facebook posts and Tweets as being 'engagement'. Mostly, they're pretentious, soul-eating b.s. The really sad part is the value -seemingly- placed on them.) So in the middle of all this cynicism and negativity and mistrust, we also have this lack of connection. (Despite being so 'connected' by the Internet.)
And the complicating factors are painful to consider: Councillors and the Mayor don't want to make time for the contact, they don't want to risk having a 'bad experience', and the residents for whom they work don't want to spend their valuable time engaging. (Unless they've got a bone to pick...and then you end up with a perverted situation akin to a marriage that needed counselling long before it's finally implemented.)
But here's my foundational belief: there is no other path to better local governance than increased contact, increased interaction, involvement...'an increased relationship of engagement between residents and their Councillors and Mayor.'
How else can anyone hope to bring about a situation where people feel more invested in their futures? By hoping for 'better' candidates to arrive, and that these candidates are going to do what, exactly? By hoping that Councillors have more mailouts and emailed newsletters? Really?!?
How else can anyone hope to utilize the energies of the very people whom the governance is intended to benefit? By hoping that putting up a blog or a site will empower their constituents, or that editorials and articles posted by civic activism sites that depend on comments for their vitality will bring about such a development? Really?!?
Situations between people only genuinely improve when there's actual contact. Engagement.
Leadership is only possible when there's actual contact. Engagement.
If we all sincerely want to move past the 'legacy malaise' Hamilton has had as its ongoing burden, if we sincerely want to forge a better future, then some basic truths need to be acknowledged, some core elements of our local governance construct need to be changed.
We have an opportunity to re-create, to re-invent our city, our local governance, the lives we live in Hamilton. And that opportunity is simple: town hall meetings.
