"It's a cultural thing, dummy." Part Two

This week, I had an unexpected, extended online conversation with someone active in their community, someone whose love for the city is above reproach, someone who has a keen intellect and a spirited way of using it. 

We were talking about term limits. 

And we were on opposite sides of the philosophical fence. 

They see term limits as a solution. 

I see better civic engagement as a solution. 

But I'm not entirely sure we're trying to solve the same problem. 

They have a much more defined sense of social injustice than I do. They use a different lens to view through, they've had entirely different experiences, they're on an entirely different path. And for them, I suppose if I were to paraphrase, their view on term limits is to ensure that we have a much better opportunity for- Well, as I'm not going to attribute the quote, I'll just go ahead and put it in their own words: 

"There is an institutional component: incumbents enjoy a city-funded budget for promotions, enjoy un-challenged access to media, and have access to resources that a randomly selected individual doesn't. For four years. It's bigger than just voters wiping their minds and making an unbiased decision for the best person based on research (that most people never do) Term limits attempt to ease the effect of these powers only held by the incumbent, because the challenge of unseating an incumbent is greater than simply presenting a better vision/platform. And they institutionalize radical change, which promotes involvement."

Needless to say, we disagree. 
LOL

For starters, they see term limits...and the resultant regular injection of change...as being capable of promoting involvement. Now, I can't argue with the notion that some people don't vote because they don't see the point, they don't see their vote counting because 'the same people get in every election'. Would some of these people vote were there term limits? Would they not be as cynical, as fatalistic? Would there be more 'involvement', meaning, presumably, less change for institutional gridlock or stagnation? Maybe. Probably. But a) not as much as my friend might want to believe, and b) I really don't think this is the right way to attack the problem, when to me, the problem is detachment. 

(For the record, I don't know of anyone who is looking for a 1-term limit. I think reasonable proponents of the concept see a 2-term limit; one to learn the ropes, to get up to speed, and the second to get done what you want to get done, working with an improved skill-set. And I don't think anyone is against sitting out an election or two and running –and serving- another pair of terms. At least I hope they're not...) 

If you're looking at improving 'involvement', I believe there are much better, more holistic, more synergistic ways. 

And there's the issue of 'the challenge of unseating an incumbent is greater than simply presenting a better vision/platform.' I guess this is where some of my biases come into play, so please bear with me. 

Instead of declaring that I'm not convinced that many new candidates are simply not ready (and in effect, perform what amounts to an insult), I'm going to ask 'What do you feel a non-incumbent has to do and display in order to be a better choice than the sitting candidate?' (Assuming that the incumbent isn't a total and complete screw-up.) 

Does a newbie have to be a force of nature? Do they have to have exceptional presence, overflowing personality and maybe some kind of area of expertise that can clearly be tapped into?

I think the answers to the above are the same: 'Yes.' Because I'm reminded of that old sports adage: 'You have to knock out The Champ.'

(Here's a suggestion to all potential candidates: put yourselves through, at minimum, a few years' worth of 'The School of Community Activism'. Show your commitment by contributing towards local change when there's no monetary recompense for you in the efforts at all.)

As for the first few points that my friend rattled off, I'm less inclined to give any of that much weight anymore. For starters, councillors aren't exactly world-beaters when it comes to using media to their advantage, news coverage notwithstanding. And with the role that social media is playing in changing landscapes...witness the 'Arab spring'...I think that whatever advantages have previously been enjoyed have been surpassed...and then some.

Additionally, I happen to believe that if you have an engaged, energized citizenry, then councillors don't have the opportunity to grow sluggish or dull or otherwise 'slack off on the job'. They can't, because they're commiserating and collaborating on a regular basis with their informed employers. Most of all, this increased resident 'involvement' -something I agreed would most likely be in place were we to attain 75% turnout rates– practically guarantees that people are either going to want to re-elect the person, or they're aware enough of the incumbent's shortcomings as to allow 'fresh blood' to overcome the inherent inequities in our construct. 

The main difference here is that term limits...if you could even find a way to institute them...are so much less a challenge than shifting a value system on the parts of Hamiltonians, than effecting a change in mindset at a grassroots level. Still, despite this, I know where my passions lay. 

In the end, the only thing we actually agreed on is the need for things to change. I guess where we really differ is in the direction from which we're each coming. The depressing part is that you have to be a real Pollyanna to believe that either approach is attainable without an extraordinary amount of effort. 






M Adrian Brassington