Sometimes, the paradigm is everything

I'm not interested in politics. 

And by 'politics', I'm referring to the game surrounding governance. 

And by 'game', I'm referring to everything that's traditionally attached to 'looking after the welfare of residents'. The performing, the grandstanding, the shenanigans, the bafflegab. 

Since I began opining about municipal politics (the other two levels hold no interest for me whatsoever), I've come to accept that most people want to focus on the politics. They want the focus to be on councillors, on the Mayor, on how they behave, on having more accountability, more transparency...and most often, how we can get at least some of Council replaced at the next election. So it's the traditional focus. On the politicians. 

That ain't me. 

I'm not saying that this approach isn't valid. Just that it doesn't appeal to me. Don't get me wrong; I believe that what should result at City Hall should be better. Of a higher standard. With much, much better, consistent results. I just don't feel any obligation to focus on this part of the 'Great Governance Formula'. Why?

Firstly because there are sufficient people focused on it. And there will always be sufficient people focused on it. The 'cause' isn't lacking energies, it won't miss mine. 

Secondly, most importantly in my mind, the other part of the equation is massively underdeveloped. To a great extent, it's been forgotten. Or dismissed. Or resigned to the status of 'Impossible to Develop'. 

I'm referring, of course, to us. 'We, the people'. 

Here's what I believe the presumed paradigm in Hamilton is regarding 'issues':

If there's something to be fought for, Those-Who-Are-Energized lobby our councillors and hope that they're prodded enough to vote/act our way. 

Yes, Those-Who-Are-Energized comment on Spec articles. Or in Raise the Hammer or The Hamiltonian comment sections. Or call into the Bill Kelly Show. Or go on Facebook and declare their thoughts on Laura Babcock's wall after listening to 'The O Show' or her 'Laircast' broadcast. Or kvetch creatively on Dissidents (Hamilton Chapter). And trust (hope?) that councillors access the same forums and witness this engagement. 

The problem with this approach is that it's hardly much more than the old-school approach of someone phoning their councillor. Or writing a letter. Or emailing. The individual's voice is vital, make no mistake about that. But given that each member of Council has tens of thousands of voting constituents, why should a marginally beefed-up version of 'direct access' by residents be seen as a powerful enough means to direct policy? To effectively shift the paradigm?

To me, we need to 'think outside the box': Instead of selling councillors on an idea individually, or even en clique, we need to shuck the limitations of the paradigm and sell the player who by rights should possess the real power in governance: the residents. 

And this is where the usual skepticism and dismissiveness kicks in. Where I seem to differ big-time with a majority of Those-Who-Are-Energized.

I can't argue with the longstanding truths attached to residents of Hamilton:

1) Roughly 40% of those eligible to vote in elections cast ballots. 

2) Almost two-thirds of these do so by 'name recognition'. 

3) Almost all step back and take a hands-off attitude towards their own governance...until the next election. 

These truths are seen by Those-Who-Are-Energized as both validation for focusing on councillors to effect change, and as reasons for not focusing on we, the people. 

I get why they see things in the ways they do. I do. But I disagree with them almost entirely. 

In Hamilton we currently have a handful of pressing issues at play that I believe should see more 'lobbying of the people' than of councillors. Once the lobbying has generated some critical mass...with councillors observing the process...then City Hall should be lobbied. But because of the longstanding governance paradigm, far less effort will be directed to increase the public's awareness of these issues, to educating, to stimulating interest, and most importantly, to bring them into the fold of Those-Who-Are-Energized, than is possible. And I'm willing to bet that the results will be- Well, the results will be disappointing. Disheartening. 

What we need to be focusing on is raising the level of debate in this city, getting more voices involved, increasing the dialogue massively so that when there's feedback provided to councillors, commiseration is the presumed result, it's not merely staff fielding sporadic phonecalls and emails...or noting online comments. 

This paradigm of ours will not be changed by councillors. It's not their mandate to do so, and honestly, I don't even think  they'd see it as being in their best interests. It has to be changed by us. Changing it needs to be considered thoughtfully and carefully by Those-Who-Are-Energized, so that we, the people can eventually take our rightful place at the table, to finally own our local governance. 

M Adrian Brassington