"It's a cultural thing, dummy." Part One

I'm fascinated by the fervor with which so many people enter into the discussion about 'term limits'.

In fact, aside from taxes, it seems to be the topic that generates the most heat. Even amongst those who are otherwise really not that engaged in their own governance. 

But in reading comments recently on articles at The Hamiltonian and The Spec, I'm inclined to wonder:

If people weren't so cynical about what goes on at City Hall, and were instead, trusting, if people weren't endemically pessimistic, but rather, optimistic, if people had a thorough understanding of what their councillors do, instead of having a default setting of benign ignorance, would there be such a hue and cry for term limits? 

Is it possible that because there's general distrust towards politicians...especially in the provincial and federal 'partisan party politics' sense...because the most cynical amongst us see them as a 'necessary evil', period, because so many of us just seem to be waiting for the next chance to launch into a tirade on how we need to clean house, how we new fresh faces, fresh ideas, new blood at 71 Main Street West, that term limits are supported so consistently? Hmm...?

Assuming the answers are 'No!' and 'Yes!', imagine a 'Bizarro World' where the opposite of what we currently see is the norm. 

Do you think that term limits would even be on the table?

What I'm asking begs a further question: How can we get there, to this 'Bizarro World'?

Here are some suggestions:

-Residents need to have a better grasp on what their councillors do, day-in, day-out. They need to feel more confidence in their elected representatives, more trust. I believe that just as with prejudice, ignorance is a powerful fuel. Take it away, and suddenly possibilities open up. 

-Residents need to develop better skill-sets regarding the capabilities and performance of councillors, in being able to discern a good (or bad) delivery of what the position requires. (And they should be able to do the same for non-incumbents at election-time.) 

-Residents need to have a better sense of involvement in their own governance, a higher degree of investment. The more each Hamiltonian feels a part of the effort, the better the chance is that they're feeling inclusive, and the less they're bound to validate an 'Us vs Them' construct. 

-Residents need to engage their councillors. This shouldn't happen only when there's a complaint or a problem. There's supposed to be a relationship in place. And as we all know, if a relationship's only about 'occasions', then you really don't have much of one, do you?

-Councillors need to find ways to help make all of the above happen. Because the fact that there's a perception in place that we need term limits to clear out the dead-wood...even though this 'dead-wood' is being reinstalled at election-time at a pretty consistently high rate...means that we have a disconnect going on, an inarguably flawed dynamic. It's clearly in the city's best interest to rectify this problem, and as a result, it's also in the best interests of those councillors who are deliverers of premium public service. (I should point out that I don't believe that Council is 'at fault' in all this. Tradition, habit, expectation have all contributed to where we currently find ourselves. But councillors do need to play their parts.)

M Adrian Brassington