More thoughts on term limits and the such; stuff-most-do-not-want-to-consider

Photo: Peter Michael Wilson, Circa July 2009, Selkirk ON

1) Over at The Hamiltonian, former mayoral and Ward 2 candidate Matt Jelly was asked for his thoughts on term limits. Given that Matt and I had recently (albeit briefly) corresponded about them, I found this bit especially fascinating:

"But I do feel our best way to deal with that frustration is to push for increased voter engagement, not just at election time but between elections, and to encourage good candidates to seek office."

(And yes, this is the 'stuff' I'm talking about in this post's title.)

I've been doing a fair amount of research on the notion of term limits. Not just focusing on Ontario, or even Canada, but going as far afield as I can find documents for. And what's been notable...in its consistent absence...is the kind of focus Matt has suggested. There's lots of historical references, lots of empirical data, lots of philosophical ruminating. But very little focus on those who, in the end, hold the power: residents. We, the people. 

Naturally, I was reminded of the seminal conversation that Ryan McGreal, Publisher of 'Raise the Hammer' and I had more than eighteen months ago, right before our last municipal election. Ryan subsequently published the core of our exchanges in an editorial on the site; here's a particular sampling relevant to this topic (emphasis mine):

I'm inclined to think elections are overrated. If you vote for a candidate once every four years but don't get involved in the meantime, it doesn't really matter much *who* you vote for. Once politicians get inside the Bubble, it's impossible to keep any kind of perspective without ongoing, substantive interaction with 'regular voters' for grounding. 

Here are some of the pitfalls that render councillors incompetent:

* Ambition - voting to maximize upward political mobility

* Megalomania - refusing to listen to others

* Anger - voting to punish enemies

* Fear - voting to avoid risks

* Partisanship - voting along party lines

* Dogmatism - voting along ideological lines

* Laziness - phoning in votes instead of engaging the issues

* Stubbornness - refusing to cooperate with others or compromise

Left isolated from the outside world, just about anyone will fall prey to one or more of these pitfalls, which is why it's so important for citizens to: a) elect councillors who will allow themselves to be engaged, and b)keep up their end of that engagement between elections.

This is the heart of the matter for me. I'm constantly dismayed that when we're talking about 'what's wrong at City Hall', so much emphasis is placed on 'bad performance' by councillors, or 'career politicians' who keep getting re-elected, or questionable decisions by Council...

...but there's almost never any attention paid to what residents contribute to the situation at any given moment. 

Specifically, the fact that it's voters that keep returning incumbents is...is...ignored. 

Doesn't it make more sense for at least some of the energy towards term limits (and if you want to see a sampling, check out the discussion on this article at The Hamiltonian) to be directed at a) those people who are repeatedly returning incumbents, b) those people who aren't voting, period, and/or getting a candidate of their choice elected?
But that seems to be a little outside either the remit or the interests of the pro-term limiters. Which is a shame really, because it's my understanding that they're bound to see more success result from the above than from trying to get the Municipal Act changed. 

In other words, this all smacks of badly-applied energies. 

Putting resident investment aside for a second, the best suggestions I've seen to address the 'unfair advantage' that incumbents have...experience and status notwithstanding...is to do something about campaign parameters. 




2) One of the notions that pro-term limiters seem to latch onto is that of 'voluntary term limits'. I don't like the idea of  calling anyone naïve, mostly because it's been a pejorative applied to me a few too many times. But in this case, it seems an appropriate descriptive. 

Not all politicians are the same. There is a gamut, one that any given Council at any given time runs, one of abilities, skill-set, inclination, etc. Some are more ego-driven than others, who may have strong community-based altruistic streaks. But I believe that because all politicians love the chance to do their job, being in a position of relative power is intoxicating, and so it's hardly a surprise that someone would willingly 'step aside', if even for a term. 

3) There's this dichotomy present for some, when considering councillors. There's this elevated status of 'public service' (therefore, not a 'job') and then there's the general 'loaded for bear' attitude towards them, Council as a whole, and the mayor.

So maybe it's that people have an innate respect for the office, the idea of local governance...but as soon as you put a person in the position, they're ready to let loose at first opportunity. 

To me, this makes for some considerable inner conflict. 

But it also explains a lot. 

Pro-term limiters want 'fresh talent' to replace 'career politicians'...but the labels migrate over time, the cynicism rises, the loaded shotguns get aimed, but no matter how good the councillor has gotten at their job...they should go away. 

I hate to reduce this discussion to anything approaching 'facile', but I'm wondering if a lot would be accomplished  were people-in-general more aware of what a councillor does. You know, as the effective employer be in possession of a job description for the employee. 

But I guess this falls within the category of 'citizen participation'. Or 'resident investment'. That whole community engagement thing. 

M Adrian Brassington