Me and Mahesh and 'term limits'...

It's fascinating to have to process the opinions of someone you respect, someone whose intellect is above reproach, someone whose Life experiences inform so fulsomely his observations and viewpoints...and yet disagree with entirely.

Well... In the case of Mahesh P. Butani and his latest contribution to the 'term limits' debate, which can be found here at The Hamiltonian, not so much 'entirely'. Because I do agree with his longings. I just don't agree with the methods he feels are reasonable by which those longings would be into reality.

To a certain extent, what Mahesh proposes is akin to taking an overweight, out-of-shape person and by way surgery and cellular manipulation, 'correct' their state.

Just how much of an accomplishment would this be? And is it worth what's being sacrificed? 

I'll concede that these questions take the debate from 'Shall we have term limits?' to 'What should we be trying to accomplish, here?' I'll additionally concede that probably most of the pro-term limits camp are disinterested in how I frame things; they want the old faces gone, period, whereas I want a better profile of the role we play in our local governance, therefore making it less likely that 'deadwood' is able to stick around, because the 'employers' aren't limiting themselves to participation every four years, but are actively involved on a steady basis, through consultation and collaboration. I fully recognize that not only isn't this on 'their' radar, but that my views are seen as being either naïve or ridiculously idealistic by 'them'. I can live with this assessment, because I believe that the obese, out-of-shape patient needs to get to where they want to be by dint of their own efforts, that the process matters as much as the result, that the wisdom and humility gained by getting there the 'honest' way far outstrips what's attained by the unnatural wave of a magic wand. 

Anyway, on with my detailed response to Mahesh's essay: let's play 'Deconstruction'!

Hamilton's politicians have continued to justify their long term careers by alluding to "corporate memory" as some sort of holy grail. Every election season, our media reinforces such thinking across the city by making a --spectator sport out of a democratic process. In doing so, they end up celebrating and promoting old thinking which they refer to as 'experience' - over new thinking which they write off as an 'upstart fancy'.

I can't argue with this. But to me, the real 'culprit' here isn't the stance of the incumbents, who are, let's face it, wanting to keep their jobs. Nor is it 'media' (towards whom Mahesh has an undeniable 'cynicism'.). It's us. We, the people. Because neither of the other factors would matter, were we collectively awake and aware and capable of discerning 'shit from shinola'. 

In today's world, successful cities are those that have developed an inspired political acumen to erase their corporate memory in order to make space for new, rapidly changing data to drive their growth. Instead of being driven by a centralized memory warehouse, such cities have developed abilities to unleash the power of 'dispersed memory' from a multitude of sources to dynamically adapt its political processes, policies and strategies in real-time to the shifting global and local realities.

Agreed. And I think it would be worthwhile to examine these cities to see how the various participants have contributed what they have, as opposed to those they have displaced. No, I'm not being glib here, nor flippant, or condescending. It's all fine and dandy to make references to 'successful cities', but we (the readers) need to be able to see these references to the same extent that we can see contestants and their 'Before' and 'After' photos on 'The Biggest Loser'. So I'd be very curious to be able digest a) A list of 'successful cities', b) a brief history showing the migration from 'unsuccessful' to 'successful' states, and c) clear representations of how the councillors have changed things. I'd really like to be able to see what makes a 'good' councillor in these circumstances. (And thereby contribute to a better process, a better governance.) 

It is from such nimbleness that successful cities are able to attract the brightest minds, risk capital and resources which fuels its growth. "Career politicians" are an antithesis to current market dynamics on account of their proven inability to be responsive to changing realities.

Again, I'd like to see what this looks like. Additionally, I find it a bit much to label all 'career politicians' as antithetical to good governance. But even if this is true, who's really at fault here? Who's the gonad doing the re-hiring, if these people are so ill-equipped to be looking after the needs of a changing municipality? Clearly, we need better-equipped citizens, so they can appreciate what Mahesh is getting at here, yes? 

I take offense to labelling the career politicians as 'Them', a group we need to arbitrarily get rid of. I especially take offense to this being done when those doing the 'getting rid of' are performing far, far worse at their 'job' than the career politicians are at theirs. 

For decades, most Hamiltonian's have known what they want their city to become. So what is that has consistently stood in their way? -- resources? ideas? or just human shortcomings?

Have they? Have most Hamiltonians known what they want their city to become? Mostly, what I've read are vague musings that remind me of a political platform: long on generalizations, short on actual plans. I have seen very, very few examples of people imagining their city, aside from notions like 'walkable streets, jobs, etc'. I applaud those who are able to be specific, but in most cases, even they're reactions to plans by the City or a developer, or an OMB process. 

I'm not meaning to overly criticize them, but it does point up the much bigger picture, one absolutely connected to my beliefs about greater citizen engagement in the governance process: we are, in the main, detached from most things having to do with how things unfold in our city. (Please don't mistake a few dozen online commenters, or a gross or two of 'activists' with the half-a-million residents that call Hamilton home: most people are detached. Cynical, frustrated, fatalistic...detached.) But I don't believe they're to blame for this. It's systemic, it's cultural, it's even generational. And to the degree that pro-term limiters believe what they believe, I do regarding the need for this to change. 

We can continue to debate around this answer for another decade, or face up to that single biggest stumbling block in our way which is - term limits. Sooner or later we will have to either figure out an innovative way to circumvent it and move forward, or simply remove it from our path in order to progress.

No. 

A thousand, million times no. 

The 'single biggest stumbling block in our way' is not term limits. 

It's us. 

The fact that we are fundamentally detached from our own governance. (Regardless of the reasons or contributing factors.) 

The fact that were we, going back to the analogy of an obese, out-of-shape, danger-to-themselves person, eating right, actively pursuing a 'fitness' lifestyle, we wouldn't need the rash intervention of drugs or surgery...or the waving of a magic wand.

I find it saddening that Mahesh, even with his proximity to my own yammerings-on, even with his familiarity with what I've been ruminating on in the background, would –seemingly– choose to ignore what I've been saying for so very long, that we need to change our role at the governance table and instead, choose to proceed to demonize those who have been chosen by us to sit on Council.

In fact, it's bewildering. I am left to primarily chalk it up to 'personal issues'...but then this doesn't even make sense, given how he generally responds to situations revolving around councillors or Mayor Bratina. (Especially the latter.) 

...

"...incumbents will continue to possess large, taxpayer-paid personal staffs--a de facto reelection apparatus... Careerists remain dominant among elected officials... Incumbents continue to win most elections.... Most continue to prefer civic abandonment to civic involvement. All told, representative government still reflects the interests, not of the public, but of a distinct, career-minded ruling class: legislators, bureaucrats, media elites, and like-minded interest groups. That is likely to change only with term limits, the shorter the better. 

Again, I disagree wholeheartedly. (And then some.) Legislating term limits is, to me, a lazy approach to a legacy problem, a problem better solved by addressing the legacy attached to it, that of resident detachment and uninvolvement. 

" ...term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. One study estimates that California's term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected. Cities that have implemented term limits have discovered the same phenomenon: more, and more diverse, candidates are running for office."

Super. Let's get this in a more organic, more noble way by moving towards something we desperately need as much as 'fresh faces at Council': better investment in where people live, in how they live there, better pride-of-place, better awareness of community...a better-equipped citizenry. I absolutely, positively guarantee you that this state would produce precisely what you long for. Without the (impossible to attain) provincial legislation. Because the formerly obese and out-of-shape person needs the process as much as they need the results. 

"The primary reason [for term limits] is not to dislodge entrenched incumbents who use the resources of the modern state as entrenching tools--although this is, over time, a powerful reason. The primary and sufficient reason for limits is to remove one motive--careerism--for entering..."

Right. 

Because in all cases, it's wrong for someone to want to make a career of serving their community. 

I'm no idjit, I'm not nearly as 'naïve' as detractors believe, but I'm also clearly not as cynical as those, such as Scott Thompson of CHML (who wanted voters to toss out all incumbents back in 2010) and pro-term limiters. 

And in the end, if there's a problem with 'careerism', then please, for the love of God, let's address the mechanism that allows for –presumably– badly-performing incumbents to be re-installed...

...us. We, the people. The 40% of eligible voters that keep doing the re-installing. 

The purpose of shorter term limits, then, is to provide an opportunity for the latter people to run for office, to attract as candidates people willing to set aside their professional lives for a season, rather than people hoping to make politics their professional lives.

Again, I reject this arbitrary, and wide-sweeping generalization...and combine it with pointing out that it takes an employer to give a flawed and suspiciously-motivated applicant a job. 

The founders of America, along with famed Roman statesmen and British classical liberals, strongly believed in rotation in office.... Today politics is the life of far too many office- holders. And that has made them hard to defeat at the polls and perverted the policies that they support. It is time to require legislators to rediscover their lives and make politics turn on policy, not ambition, The best way to do that is to impose limits of three terms for the House and two terms for the Senate. Voters in 22 states and more than 270 cities and counties have overwhelmingly approved term- limit measures. Now it is Congress's turn. Nothing is more important today than to reverse the pernicious rise of a professional political class. </i> See: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-221.html 

It's unfortunate that Mahesh has chosen to go outside Hamilton to this extent. At the same time, I agree that within the arena of which he references, it's true; reform is required there. 

...

For those in Hamilton who continue to support the notion of long-term careers in politics, it is important to understand that Hamilton's so called "corporate memory" has consistently failed to serve the changing needs of a rapidly growing community. 

I can't argue against this. But at the same time, I'm going to be Mr. Consistent and point to how this situation has been allowed to happen: the voters have repeatedly confirmed that the 'career politicians' are the best choice. Go talk to them. 

If we refuse to accept this, we will continue to drift towards the corrupting influences arising from hero worshiping long-term political careers, and continue to genuflect in front of notions such as "name recognition" and all its accompanying sins. 

Well. 

We live in a 'cult of personality'. Of celebrity worship, where people are 'famous for being famous'. 

So if we're going to paint with that brush, then we're going to be here all day. 

People 'genuflect' out of laziness. 

Let's address the laziness, rather than those being genuflected before. Because it's not an active obeisance. It's decidedly passive. Really only manifesting itself every four years. That's 'passive' for you!

What Hamilton badly needs in its next phase of growth is a flexible and nimble politics that is not afraid to renew itself in rapid succession. This can only be achieved by career politicians who become self-aware of human shortcomings, or enforced by the collective will of the people via a referendum. Our city's growth depends on this. 

What Hamilton badly needs in its next phase of growth is a far better-equipped citizenry, residents who are invested in their own governance to a far greater extent than they have been. This will organically produce a political playing field with more flexible and nimble participants producing more flexible and nimble reactions to a dynamic world. By having 'employers' with better skill-sets, we wouldn't have to worry about the notion of 'career-politicians', because everyone installed at Council would be proof of a more humane, evolved form of governance, consulting and collaborating with their empowered and energized constituents on a regular basis, preventing poor selections at ballot-box time. To bring about change by way of a 'referendum' decided by the same ill-informed masses who vote by way of 'name recognition' almost two-thirds of the time is simply not acceptable.

Once again, our 'salvation' does not require that we generate yet another 'Us vs Them' scenario, which in truth, is 'Us vs Us'. We do not need to mindlessly and arbitrarily demonize 'career politicians', especially when we're the ones who have made them possible at all. What we need to do is be honest about how we got here, what's contributing to our frustration and angst, and actually do something about the problem, rather than get distracted by righteous indignation over faux causes. 

But maybe that's too tall an order in an age cursed by a curious mélange of entitlement and detachment. 

Still, one can always hope. 

M Adrian Brassington