Speaking Up for Community

London, Ontario faced a sobering occurrence this past week that reminded us that, on occasion, struggling for citizen’s rights has to begin at home. Following a narrowly won decision by Council to transfer one million dollars from an affordable housing reserve fund to provide more temporary relief housing, opposition quickly mounted from some to the move. Though the vote wasn’t final, it was a shot across the bow of those who believed the reserve should remain untouched – a group that included City staff. In the old days concerned citizens would have requested a meeting with city officials; today they opt for social venues like Twitter to make their argument. Up until that point everything was legitimate – a worthy debate with expression from both sides of the decision.One citizen – no stranger to social justice matters – responded on Twitter by stating he was disappointed that one councillor voted against keeping the reserve. There was nothing unusual in this, but the response he received on Facebook had a chilling effect. The councillor desired to know if the individual was speaking on behalf of his present employer or his past employer – both of who received some city funding. When he responded that he spoke only for himself, others weighed in saying it was inappropriate for a political representative to behave in such a fashion. When an Anglican minister voiced his concern about the councillor overstepping some bounds, another councillor, in language that could hardly be described as appropriate, took the minister to task, saying he shouldn’t mix church with state.In its own way it was a debacle. When it was revealed that the original councillor had phoned the present and previous employer of the social activist, I immediately received calls from some non-profit, city-funded groups worrying that this might represent a threat to their own funding should they raise their own concerns. They could hardly be blamed for wondering, since most councillors would never resort to such measures. It only got worse as the politician in question, when asked by a local reporter to explain her position, accused him of harassment and threatened to call her lawyer. It was all a soap opera of civic engagement gone bad. Lost in it all was the original and worthy debate over the affordable housing reserve fund.This is what happens when people run for political position and then turn on their own people when questioned. Here we were with a local representative prying into a citizen’s life and threatening to call a lawyer when challenged on the appropriateness of her conduct. Such action isn’t appropriate if we are truly seeking a new kind of politics of civic engagement and hope to build our own communities. The entire situation was only made worse by the councillor in question pulling her comments off of Facebook altogether – hardly a sign of open government.As communities, we must always be reminded that the purpose of argument or debate is not victory, but progress. Anger is no substitute for engagement, and attempts at intimidation can hardly pass as effective political oversight. When citizens forget this lesson, disengagement results, but when politicians forget it there can only be upheaval. Examples like that mentioned above can never end well.The very essence of community renewal is public language, not the political kind. “Who are you speaking for?” or “I’m calling my lawyer,” is the language of political insecurity, and fortunately many political representatives refuse to resort to such tactics. “I have a disagreement and I’d like to talk about it,” or “I have points I’d like to add to the discussion,” are the phrases of civility and progress. Good listeners turn out to be effective citizens and politicians, and they make excellent neighbours.The very thought of a political representative phoning former employers of one who disagrees just can’t pass the smell test of responsible representation. Social media is a seditious weapon in the hands of anarchists, but a powerful building block in the hands of citizens. Too often politicians treat such messages as reactive aspersions like Letters to the Editor, when in fact they are creative conversations that build upon one another in real-time, capturing other citizens and gaining their interest through a meaningful conversation stream. This must be accepted as part of the DNA of new democracy and awakened communities.London is in the process of putting character back into citizenship and politicians must do the same or be rendered petty at best, or obsolete at worst. This isn’t some employee group asking for certain concessions from the boss; the driver of community is, in fact, the citizen. Ownership of shared resources belongs to the citizenry, not its representatives. For that reason every citizen has a right to express an opinion without fear of reprisal, and every politician has the opportunity to shape opinion under such a mandate. But when a political servant berates his or her boss (citizen), then the genius of democracy has become inverted and the public space inevitably loses.Citizens are many things – economic agents, cultural beings, consumers, members of families, ethical agents. But they are also self-governors, and if we don’t get that part right, we can never build a more equitable future. Citizens have every right to fight for the city they want. Attempting to oppose that reality can only result in political fallout – there is no other alternative.