#1. How well MPs provide effective two-way communications between citizens and government.
On the first measure, communications, Samara awards a B grade based on the fact that MPs do make an attempt to reach Canadians through such avenues as social media, the maintenance of a website, and the mailing of materials. The B seems perhaps overly generous given the mostly one-way communications, with the MPs – depending on their political party – advising their constituents of all the great things or terrible things the government is doing or not doing When constituents are surveyed, the questions are usually quite one-sided and clearly designed to solicit a particular response rather than to seek out public opinion. In fairness to the politicians, however, whatever communications technique they employ are unlikely to stimulate a lively two-way discussion of issues given the extent of public disengagement – which is reflected in Samara’s second measurement.
The Samara study gives citizen participation a grade of only C–. The lack of participation is reflected in such things as limited contact with politicians, limited trust in politicians, a growing view that politics is irrelevant, and a low voting turnout (with Canada ranking in the bottom fifth of democracies according to the OECD). I discuss a number of the reasons for the citizen-government disconnect in my latest book, Reviving Canadian Democracy. The factors include:
The failure of political parties
Parties have become increasingly ineffective in attracting membership, especially young members, and in demonstrating their value as a link between citizens and their government. Parties are also failing to fulfill their traditional role of educating the public – through debate – about the issues of the day. Instead the parties are increasingly partisan and polarized, with discussion of important issues especially scarce during an election campaign. Any attempt to introduce a serious issue – such as reforming Medicare, responding to climate change, or tax reform – is immediately pounced upon and attacked rather than examined and debated in a process of public education.
The denigration of politicians
Politics was once regarded as “the noblest of callings” and those who aspired to public office were held in high esteem. Today, however, the terms politician and politics have a very negative connotation. When something is described as a “political decision,” it is taken to mean unwise, shortsighted, and of dubious morality. But in a democracy, decisions are inherently, necessarily, and appropriately political in nature. The process may be slow at times and often messy. Difficult compromises may be required and not all preferences can be accommodated. But those who decry politics and wish that government would run more like a business would do well to reflect on the response offered in Reinventing Government: You mean making quick decisions behind closed doors for private profit?
Our deeply negative view of politicians makes it hard to attract good people to run for office and even makes those elected to serve reluctant to acknowledge who they are. We learned from a previous study by Samara that many members of Parliament preferred to cast themselves as outsiders – people who never meant to get involved in politics and somehow found themselves in the House of Commons.
The toxic culture of mutual disrespect
We should not be surprised at the public disdain for politicians when we see how little regard they apparently have for each other. Columnist Chantal Hebert has stated that “electoral politics is a blood sport and an intoxicatingly addictive one at that.” A “take no prisoners” approach now prevails and this is especially on display in the daily Question Period when almost no attempt is made to provide answers to the questions asked.
The failure of the fourth estate
Let’s first acknowledge that the media play a very important role in a democracy, that media investigations often turn up valuable information, and that the media often provide an informed critique of government actions almost as a kind of unofficial opposition. But the media can also be blamed for some of the disconnect between citizens and their government. Media election coverage focuses almost exclusively on the horse race aspect, based on a steady stream of polls, many commissioned by the media outlets. There is little examination of major issues that ought to be the basis for voter decisions – and when issues do appear in the media it is almost always because of some controversy attached to them.
Media coverage of politics concentrates on the controversial and sensational. Bad news is news; good news isn’t. It is clash and conflict that sells papers or attracts viewers, so one can’t blame the media for covering those kinds of story. But since the public only find stories about the bad behaviour of politicians and the maladministration of bureaucrats, no wonder they have a negative view of those in public office.
#3. Whether political leaders behave in ways that demonstrate the value of politics and encourage public involvement.
Last – and definitely least – the Samara grade for political leadership is a D. The low grade is partly a reflection of the lack of diversity in Parliament and the resultant perception that our elected representatives are not well equipped to understand the needs and concerns of our diverse population. More generally, there is a widespread feeling among Canadian citizens that candidates and parties only want their vote, not their involvement.
This feeling is understandable given the way political parties now behave, as I discuss in my previously cited book. Parties now seem to give less attention to their role as unifying agents, putting forth policies that will have broad appeal across the country. Instead, the increasingly detailed information and analyses about voter preferences that is now available has led parties to develop quite narrow and specific policies tailored to placate or to please narrow segments of the population. As described well by Susan Delacourt in her book Shopping for Votes, niche policies have increasingly become the norm, policies that will shore up the base of core supporters and policies that will appeal to particular groups. This approach is inherently divisive rather than unifying in nature. It is also encourages voters to adopt a narrow and essentially selfish perspective. What are you offering for me – rather than how well are you addressing the issues facing the country – is too often the basis now used by voters to decide where to give their support.
Concluding Thought
Improving Canadian democracy will not be easy given the extent of public disillusionment with our political processes. While that disillusionment is understandable, the more the public withdraws the easier it is for those in power to take actions that weaken and undermine democracy. The result is a mutually reinforcing downward spiral that has been increasingly in evidence over the past decade. For a number of suggestions on how to reverse this troubling trend, please see my latest book, Reviving Canadian Democracy.