"Why is it that there are no 'requirements' for Councillor candidates? I get that we live in a democracy, but why do we expect that anyone without any identifiable qualifications is capable of being part of an enormous decision-making process? We license or demand qualifications of almost every other 'professional'...how is it that we've let this one slide on by?"
Beautiful question.
Because what an examination of how things work infers, is that the 'rookies' will somehow be 'brought along' by the 'veterans'. (You know, the ones whose service many want to restrict. You know, as in 'term limits'.) Or staff/bureaucrats. Perhaps the proponents of this view see a parallel with hospital interns and residents, with nurses and orderlies thrown in for good measure.
Except...except...
Ugh. That analogy makes me feel very uncomfortable.
Now, from my point-of-view, while it would be nice to have a year's programme whose 'certificate' a potential candidate would have to attain, the real 'answer' to this inarguable flaw in the system's design would be to increase the public's participation in the process of governance...something that has been covered in articles here, found with the label/tag 'Civic Engagement'.
Over the course of say, four terms, with say, three Councillors, the stabilizing element, the common denominator would probably be the residents. They're the ones who really should be helping the new Councillors find their feet. Not the 'Hail fellow, well-met!' co-Councillors, and not the City Hall staff, not the middle-level civil servants.
Your thoughts...?
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'm always interested in feedback, differing opinions, even contrarian blasts...as long as they're delivered with decorum...with panache and flair always helping.