Let's just step back a little, shall we...? Part Two

Does the average Hamiltonian understand what their councillor does on a daily basis, what the councillor's job description includes? (Even though as voters, we're the 'employers' doing the vetting, the interviewing' of each 'applicant' every election.) How about this: are they able to discern the difference between straight-up management and damage control versus visionary leadership? Is it reasonable to feel confidence in their understanding of what skills each and every member of Council brings to the job, what makes for exemplary performance...as opposed to merely muddling through a term?

Sadly, I think not. 

Now, to 'those in the know', those on Facebook and active on various civic engagement sites, this may sound preposterous. But again, there's a lot of projection going on out there: there are many such people who are, to varying degrees aware and cognizant of what's-going-on either assume that most everyone is aligned with them...or they've detached themselves from 'the 90%' that it almost doesn't matter, because their own fervour is sufficient to produce change. (This is the separated-at-birth philosophy twinned with the attitude of some councillors who really just want to get on with their jobs and don't really want to have to contend with too much public consultation or collaboration. Which is ironic, considering the former are habitually going after the latter. Hmm...) 

So it should be of no surprise that these Hamiltonians, not taking ownership of their own governance, aren't invested. And to be frank, I think it's reasonable to state that those doing the governance prefer it this way. After all, even just looking at elections, it's much easier to be re-elected if you're not having to worry about 60% of the voters.

The heartening thing is that correcting this situation is not an impossible quest. Think about it: educating the public regarding how municipal politics works. 

Already, I can hear the naysayers and their chants, their rousing chorus of dismissal. "People aren't going to be interested! That's why we're where we are now! You're talking pie-in-the-sky! You're naïve!'

My gut reaction is: 'And instead of bringing people into the process via inclusive measures, you're intending to do what, exactly...? Hope for charismatic candidates to usher in a new era of interest? Pray that 'the 90%' are visited by The Civic Engagement Faerie and see the light, voting at every turn and authentically participating?'

The approach I believe in comes down to encouragement by way of information, of knowledge. Of empowering residents to understand how things work at City Hall, so that they have an informed perspective, born out of qualified opinions. To equip them to be active players at the table, rather than having to simply cross their fingers and wish for the best possible outcomes. 

Granted, no matter what you provide some people, nothing sticks. With others, only some things stick. But considering that very little has actually been attempted on a broad-scale basis, and considering that we have this untapped resource that could change the entire landscape of local governance, why on earth wouldn't we at least give this endeavour an honest try? 

I don't believe you can berate people into 'a better way'. Or, as Bonnie Raitt sang, 'I can't make you love me...' (So I don't believe in mandatory voting.)

What I do believe in is finding ways to bring people around, to get them more involved, to essentially 'seduce' them so that they end up wanting what you'd like them to want, for their own reasons, and in their own time. Because when someone has that kind of motivation, when they're doing something because they've discovered their own impetus, it's always far more powerful a process underway then when they've been mandated. 

I've seen it in personal fitness, in personal finance, in just about all walks of Life. So referencing the above, I have to start with the notion that getting people to change can't be initiated out of City Hall or by councillors. Now, some might see this as digging a much bigger hole to climb out of. I don't; I see it as providing better focus on what components might therefore be capable of producing this 'value systems' change, this paradigm-shift. 

I believe that both the impetus and the mechanism must be generated at the street level. The initiatives must come from 'us', rather than be mandated by others and directed by a department, an agency or an organization. 

M Adrian Brassington