Committees and Unrequited Love
Increases in information and communication should improve the quality of our democracies. However the quality of our democracy doesn’t seem to be increasing at the same rate as access and information. Nationally, provincially and locally it seems to be decreasing. In my opinion starting locally is were we reverse this alarming trend.
A decade ago I would have believed that access to data and social media would translate into more democratic institutions, more transparent governments, and a more active citizenry. Looking around and taking stock recently I’m concluding I was wrong. We’re fatigued by thinking we’re participating, while not realizing the benefits or affecting change.
“Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited love.” Charles M. Schulz
Polls show citizens have low confidence in politicians in general and in political institutions, and they believe that many politicians have lost touch with those they claim to represent regardless of their position. Seems counterintuitive that having more access to politicians, staff and information at our fingers would disengage us. Maybe the conversation is happening in the wrong place and its a meaningless system in lieu of a democratic one with policy outcomes, projects and initiatives of value.
We’re in a feedback loop that’s resulting in lower and lower participation. Only having access to information and media isn’t enough to encourage sustainable participation. I don’t think elections happen frequently enough to hold our sustained engagement. I believe there’s increased demand of our engagement to counter the rate of change we’re experiencing. We have unhealthy cynicism about politics, and a growing lack of faith in institutions. Some claim this the product of apathy. While we were watching for Orwell, Huxley snuck right in. We need a frame of reference that captures the whole system and to step back and analyze if it is aligned to our needs. Often we blame actors in a system for it’s failure, when more often than not they are performing as designed.
Is it possible a reliance on social media is creating discontinuity in our democracy. What becomes of citizen engagement in-between elections for instance. Back to the farms and mines and mills for a season? Not for a while now. I think we need continuous engagement in the system to keep pace with the needs of citizens. And it’s not just the rate of change, we’re on a deadline.
Since Aristotle we’ve been more aristocratic than democratic. Politics are too important to leave solely in the hands of politicians and hibernate or argue for 4 years. And I wonder if a market has been created of social enterprise instead to just more direct participation in government? A system that’s exposed to increasing risk of backroom deals and corruption. Is social enterprise competing with government for participation? I see a lot of confusion about what is a CoL event or program and what is private enterprise recently.
Politicians forget their electoral promises once they are in office almost as fast as voters. I don’t blame politicians or voters. I blame a system that’s inadequate at gathering requirements fast enough and delivering programs with benefits continuously. Unfulfilled promises are symptoms of a bigger problem, the contract of representation that binds voters and elected representatives is strengthened through effective use of citizen advisory committees. Londoners do not feel properly represented and declining confidence is a serious matter. Discontinuity in engagement inhibits the democratization of democracy. The system should involve more than going to the ballot box every four years. It should also involve ordinary citizens on a regular basis not kept at arms length at the end of a social corporation. Committees are part of the solution not the problem.