This...*this* is our greatest liability...

(Teeny apologies for the tech glitch at the start of the clip.)

...and our greatest challenge.

Recently, over at Cal 'The Great Enigma' DiFalco's 'The Hamiltonian', in the middle of this discussion about Bob Bratina's candidacy, a comment was made that for me, crystalized -once again- that the 'problem' in local politics (and I'm limiting myself to this aspect of governance and will probably forever more, because that's where my philosophy about engagement will find the most traction) isn't on the City Council side of the equation...it's on our side of it.

Before I get into the specifics of the comment and how effective it is in illustrating the thrust of this particular yammering-on, I want to quickly review this philosophy of mine. As presented in this series of editorials, I believe that in order to get to a place where our City Council is able to provide us the 'type of government' we need, we'll have to effect a wholesale shift in terms of what we contribute to the process.

To wit, voting every four years and then leaving the Council to its work is not enough.

Unless you believe that us being delivered 'better candidates who will perform better than the last batch of bums' is something fated from on-high. (Which would have me champing at the bit to ask questions, starting with 'What on Earth makes you think that this is a reasonable hope/wish/expectation?!?')

I believe that in order to migrate to the next level of our society's evolution, we need to be part of the process. An active part of the process. Authentic participants in the process, not merely observers. (And yes, how I propose getting there is in the aforementioned series. No, I'm not going to parse-and-present for you; frankly, if this notion of increased engagement doesn't appeal, doesn't pique your curiosity and get you to want to make the effort to read the material...then what we have here isn't so much 'failure to communicate', but rather, an entrenched disinterest that parallels, for example, those who have detached themselves from their bodies and are dealing/not-dealing with obesity, all its associated ailments and the non-fitness travails that go along with this general state of affairs: someone who, for identifiable reasons, cannot be bothered.)

What we currently see in terms of how people regard their local politics is actually reminiscent of sports. Of a particular fan's relationship with a particular team in a particular sport. They're consumers of the team's offerings, they dive into each season and accept what's offered...bewailing the defeats and failures while occasionally being able to celebrate victories and championships. (I know, I know; I'm being generous here, but bear with me.) Other than investing their time (and money, if they're attending games and purchasing team product), fans don't have a 'say'. So they're limited to their spectating role.

And this is the hands-off dynamic that we have always been burdened with regarding local politics. We vote every four years...we passively watch as Council does what it does...we bitch and complain when something goes 'wrong' (witness the Pan Am Stadium Site Selection Process)...and then en masse, get enraged, take our delivery of umbrage from www.highdudgeon.com and begin screaming 'VOTE THE BUMS OUT!'

Resulting in me asking 'How's that working out for you?' Or to sardonically mutter my favourite British expression 'Good luck with that.'

Just as people being detached from their physical forms, not being mindfully active in a fitness sense, not looking after the quality of food they gift themselves, living a life that doesn't in any way honour what they've been blessed with, this paradigm doesn't work. And will never work. Even if we got lucky and elected half a Council of truly blessed talents, it still won't get us where we want to be. Because to get there, we're going to have to change the way we see local government, the way we design our participation in our neighbourhoods, our communities, our wards, our city...we're going to have to effect a value system shift in accordance with what I lay out in that series: a 'relationship of engagement' with our councillors.

(And at this point, I have to say that there have been indications from the materials that I've been reading from various candidates that give me hope. Ward 2 candidate Martinus Gelynese said this in a recent article on 'The Hamiltonian': "It is essential for a councillor to represent their constituents at City Hall, rather than being a representative of City Hall in their ward." And Ward 9 candidate Nancy Fiorentino says on her site "Let me ENGAGE you in discussions, let me RESPECT your opinions by bringing them to the table where decisions are made and by being accountable for doing so, and finally, let me DELIVER by working hard to ensure that your needs and the communities needs are addressed in the decision making process," noting as well her commitment to 'Encouraging and Providing New Means for Public Participation and Citizen Engagement.' These are but two heartening examples of philosophies that align -at least as far as they go- with mine. I'm not claiming that either candidate would agree as to how we actually arrive at a more equitable paradigm, especially as I believe the effort has to come from the citizen side, but as far as the end result they both propose, I think we're on the same page.)

As for what prompted this editorial...

Within that original article about Bob Bratina, this comment in response to a fairly loaded broadside about Mr. Bratina and one of the BIAs in central Hamilton:

"After all, the BIA is mandated by City Council and its budget is approved by the Council as well as its Board. Commercial property owners have no choice but to pay the extra levy."

I bring this up because it's a great example of someone with admirable ardour, but clearly lacking a functional understanding of how BIAs are set up, what their functions are, how they operate, yadda, yadda, misconception yadda. (In the end though, it's a good idea to remember that just about all governments everywhere, if they could, would be controlling just about everything...though nobody would ever admit to this notion, not even when under the influence of alcohol or drugs...so it's safe to assume that one of the reasons for BIA support by Council by way of funding, etc, is to in fact steer their courses...at least that's certainly my impression after pointed observation hand-in-hand with doing some research...)

In a system where we're all active participants, where there's a far, far higher standard of engagement, of involvement...and by extension, capability within discourse, while you're still going to have disagreements, diametrically-opposed stances, you'll -hopefully- have far, far less instances of ignorance. Which really, ardour aside, is what this comment reveals. (Bless the commenter just the same, of course.)

Because, going back to the title of this post, as Sy Syms has said for decades: 'An educated consumer is our best customer.'