Having
finally gotten around to reading Samara's report The
Real Outsiders: Politically Disengaged Views on Politics and
Democracy,
published late last year I will give a brief synopsis of their
findings along with my reaction to their findings. In their focus
groups from a variety of social economic backgrounds they compared
those who considered themselves 'engaged' in politics with those who
did not , not surprisingly both groups indicated frustration with
both politicians in general and with government bureaucracy
specifically. Most of my extracts and comments will focus upon those
who feel that neither of the above are serving them well and who have
thus become 'disengaged'.
Two
main themes seem to run through the responses, firstly
“We are too busy with our own lives.”
“nine times out of ten I just have so much other crap on my
plate.”
“I have a job. I got school. I have friends. I don’t
have time.”
“I don’t feel I have a role in politics”
“the best way for me [to cope] is just not to care about them.”
This
is understandable, particularly for those for whom it is a daily
struggle just to keep their head above water, in an earlier post I
looked at how
income affected democracy, here then is yet
another possibility, those struggling to make ends meet, working long
hours, looking after family and so on simply don’t have the
time or inclination to follow the daily shenanigans of whatever party
is currently in power. The little sound bites that the spin
machines produce that they catch on the news are their sole exposure
to our “political system”. No wonder so many are cynical,
turned off and less than knowledgeable about our democracy and its
governance.
Secondly “why
should I care for the system if the system doesn’t care for
me?” In the
end, many expressed
feelings of fatigue. They were tired of having to “fight
all the time to be
heard.”
“When
a problem arose that
required
government assistance—be it finding
a job,
securing a daycare spot, or addressing
overcrowded
schools—they expected little of
their
politicians and little of their government.
Importantly,
when disengaged participants
experienced
difficulty with the system, there
was
little conceptual separation between the
role of
civil servants and the role of politicians.”
Perhaps this is the
most revealing part of this study, that for many folks government
programs and the difficulties in obtaining answers or assistance is
directly linked to the political side of things and the local MP or
MPP is often viewed as the front door to such things.
For most
of the people we spoke to, government
was
synonymous with politics. Thus a negative
experience
in accessing government services
or
receiving poor service from the office of a
Member of
Parliament were equally likely to
shape an
individual’s negative perception of
the
political system.
In theory our members
of parliament are not there to guide us through the government maze
but to represent
us during decisions being made on our behalf in
the various legislatures, in practice the complexity of ever changing
government programs and the often uncaring response we get from some
departments means that we NEED someone to help us through the maze.
Our local MP or MPP seems to be the place of last resort in such
struggles. That is not how it is supposed to work but that is how it
IS working. When such effort fail is it little wonder that folks
blame the politician or the system equally and are 'turned off'
politics.
In a
healthy democracy, the
political
system will respond to the issues the
public
cares about, in part because the public has
the
ability to hold politicians to account for their
actions.
Instead, we heard about untrustworthy
politicians
and an unresponsive bureaucracy.
Earlier
reports from Samara showed that even many
politicians were unsure of their role in our democracy, are they
representatives of the people or of the party or advocates or the
doorway to government services. In the present circumstances it is
indeed hard to tell whether they are all of these things or none of
them. One thing is clear, such distinctions need to be clearly
spelled out and the status quo changed to make them more accountable
individually rather than as just a mouthpiece for their party, and
government services must be streamlined and made more accessible to
the public so that the MPs can get on with the job of holding the
current centralized “government” to account.
Only when the public
feel they are being listened to will they start to become 'engaged',
perhaps that is why so many of us are being ignored?
Samara's Executive
Summary says “(P)olitically
engaged Canadians feel, despite their frustrations with politics,
that the system does work for them. They believe in their ability to
effect change. “
I
count myself as fairly 'engaged' but I for one seriously doubt my (or
any other non lobby group member of the public) ability to effect
change, particularly withing the increasingly oligarchical system of
governance we are seeing of late.
1 comment:
I can't think of a time in the post-WWII era when the public had so many causes for anxiety from global warming (and the host of associated challenges) to economic threats, domestic and global, to the bevy of security threats from terrorism to nuclear proliferation and the transition in major superpower reigns.
Yet I can't think of a party in Canada that engages the public on these pressing 'concerns of the day.' When the political classes disengage from the public the people can hardly be faulted for their disinterest.
I have never seen Canada so bereft of compelling leadership. It's truly pathetic. If we're lucky we will find another grand leader who will capture the public's imagination and cause them to re-engage.
Post a Comment