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.

Looking for the Good News

It is tempting to label all politicians as self-serving, witless buffoons who generally would not know how to organize a sock drawer, never mind draft policies and laws that would govern a country. Hundreds of pundits and bloggers do so on a daily basis in part because it is just so easy to do so. It does not matter what our political bent is, there are numerous examples of the incompetence of politicians regardless of their ideological leanings. Some days it is difficult to find any examples of a politician and even harder - a group of politicians who demonstrate any capacity to work together to effect good - or at least good for anyone different than themselves. But our cynicism is partially self-inflicted in that we do not demand that politicians work together, we certainly do not reward those that do. In fact, I suspect that our interest in politics and the activities of those we have elected is directly proportional to the level of political absurdities and stupidity that the media reports. Politics are boring if everyone agrees with each other and if all are working towards a common goal. The media has learnt that if you wanted to attract readers/listeners/viewers - you need to sensationalize the news, you need to stress the bits that will get people reacting.

This approach has a couple of consequences. One is that it teaches the public that we should distrust all politicians who do not think like us, secondly that there are only black and white answers to all issues and that there is no middle ground where consensus can be negotiated and thirdly - that politicians learn that to get attention and therefore be re-elected - they need to say and do things that facilitate that polarization. It is a vicious circle - politicians get rewarded by being extreme in their opinions in part by demonstrating a limited (or no) capacity to think, individuals are attracted to media that both stimulates and reconfirms their beliefs/values, politicians get re-elected on meaningless platforms. The form is all that matters, the substance has become irrelevant.

And yet, at least in Canada, there are some real tangible signs that not all politicians are incompetent and that there is a real possibility that some of them, from different political parties, are at least willing to consider that they can and should work together. This week, CBC reported a few comments by politicians and others that suggest that things may not be as unworkable as the pundits suggest. Ford, the Premier of Ontario has suggested that he can work together with the federal government to address some of the issues - in fact he describes his meeting with Trudeau as being "very productive, very collaborative". Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage described her first meeting with the federal Natural resource Minister ( Seamus O'Regan) as "very good start." The oil and gas leaders of Alberta are welcoming the appointment of Anne McLellan as an unpaid adviser to the government.

What is remarkable about all three of those stories is how little press they received, how little enthusiasm was generated by the possibility that maybe, just maybe politicians will work together to solve some of the issues that arise in a country as large and as diverse as is Canada. They are small stories - nothing will change because some leaders have expressed some limited enthusiasm for some meetings but it is a start. We need to support those politicians and captains of industry, we need to reward them with our cheers, we need to encourage them to keep looking for the positives, we need to assure them that we prefer it when they work together, when they avoid looking for the negatives.

It is time that we, the people, start to control how the narrative is told. We need to tell the storytellers to change the manipulative spin on the stories that they chose to tell. That does not mean they ignore the bad stuff - just that they tell the whole story.