Explaining Politics -Not

I would have a hard time explaining to an alien from outer space how Canadian politics work. It would be easy enough to explain how, on paper, our parliamentary system is supposed to function, but telling the stranger why people do what they do, why they, in many instances, seem to vote against what is best for them or their neighbours and all too frequently we collectively make decisions that fly in the face of all logic. The visitor from some distant galaxy would get a completely different explanation depending on who they spoke to, where they lived, how old they were and in many cases what gender they assigned to themselves. If I tried to explain how politics work in another country worked, I would be even more unsuccessful.

While one can explain how politics work (or rather don't) in the USA by just stating the obvious - they are all crazy or incredibly short-sighted, it is much harder to understand what is going on in Great Britain. It would appear as if the party who is guaranteeing that Britain will leave the EU will win - in spite of the fact that a significant percentage of Britons do not want to leave. How terrible it must be to have to support an act that makes little sense to anyone if for no other reason that it is not clear what leaving will actually mean.

I think traditionalist like me, people who were raised in the 50s and 60s by families that were quite clearly more aligned to Great Britain than to the US, naturally assume that GB is the elder statesman of democracy - they, after all, invented it (or at least we were told). We expect their system after seven or eight hundred years of evolution to have all of the kinks worked out of it. But the reality is that democracy, like so many other things, must always be a work in progress. Just because a country or a culture has always done something a certain way does not mean that that way is still the right way. However, the evolution of a democracy used to be a slow process, only gently influenced by current events. Institutions would take years to make even minor adjustments. Changes in very small increments would happen after extensive consultation and sometimes immense pressure sustained over years. Almost nothing happened as a direct result of current events. Politicians were somewhat isolated more often than not from the affairs of most of their constituents.

That is no longer true. We live in a time where there is almost near-instantaneous communication. We expect our politicians to know everything we know as fast as we know it. We expect them to respond just as quickly. There is no time for careful consideration of all of the facts, of slow and often painfully laborious debates or reviews. No longer are people required to be respectful or even educated in the matter. We all have the right to yell, scream, post or email anyone and everyone - demanding quick answers and solutions.

It is hard to deny the people's right to engage their elected representatives. It is equally as hard to disagree with the fact that the world is better off when the barriers that were created by status, race or gender have been dissipated (or at least started to). But it could be argued that in our passionate desire to allow everyone to have an equal right to engage the politicians - we have deleted the buffer zone that allowed people time to think about what is the best direction to take.

We have all too frequently been reduced to serving those with the loudest voices or those who are the most organized or those who have the most money to spread their message. It perhaps has always been that way, but it seems to me, at least in the case of Great Britain that they would benefit from an extended period of sober thought - without people screaming at each other that they alone know the right course of action.