Conscience and Cowardice

563030_468418673211852_987616969_n“Conscience and Cowardice,” said Oscar Wilde, emending Shakespeare, “are really the same things. Conscience is the trade-name of the firm.”  H. L. Mencken partially agreed, noting that nowhere in the English language is a term so rich in ironic ambiguities than “conscience”. It seems to me that modern citizens are caught in the ongoing tension between these two realities.  It has been a simple thing of late to pile on politicians for “not living up to their conscience” or “behaving as cowards by not standing up for the constituents.”  Who can argue?  The party system gave up attempting to inspire us a long time ago, opting instead to try to steal our vote by hammering the other parties.But for the citizen these two terms equally apply - often two sides of the same coin.  Of course, when it’s “open season” on politicians for lacking something of a spine, it’s never a good thing to say the same of voters because, well, they’re voters and everything depends on getting their support.By-elections have been viewed as occasions when citizens hold a disproportionate influence over the electoral process.  There’s no full national or provincial campaign going on which can swing local ridings one way or another.  Candidates, though often affected by the reputation of their parties, nevertheless can gain slightly higher profile in a by-election.  There is some wiggle room here for a candidate who wishes to place a personal stamp on a campaign by showing they can think independently or put forward some of their own ideas.  I won in a federal by-election in 2006 against a national party leader, former mayor, and a former city councilor.  All were good candidates.  I opted to talk about how cooperation with all the other parties would be essential to the success of any government (ironically, an odd idea at the time), and that overt partisanship was a curse to any kind of politics.  That would have been much harder to achieve in a full national campaign.Conventional wisdom also says that by-elections form a kind of referendum on the current power structures of the day.  This is no doubt true, as citizens often use the opportunity to take out their frustrations.But there is one aspect of by-elections that rarely gets mentioned, and that’s the fact that they are also referendums on citizens themselves.  If it’s true that citizens can squeeze out a bit more influence during by-elections, then one would think they would jump at the chance, not only to make a difference but to highlight their local issues at a time when other jurisdictions are watching.  Sadly, citizens often blow that opportunity by thinking such contests mean little anyway and don’t bother making their mark.Which brings us back to the idea of conscience and cowardice.  We have a provincial by-election where I live in London today.  People have been hard on the politicians, saying that it’s the “same old, same old” and that they’re tired of the bickering.  As a direct witness to this campaign, I can attest that there is some validity in these claims.Yet such things don’t represent a valid excuse for not voting, because a significant aspect of the viability of democracy is just in the showing up.  Let’s not confuse dramatics for conscience.  People can scream all they want about how angry or confused they are, but these are hardly protestations of conscience.  Acts of conscience require the courage to show up, despite the odds or feeling of ineffectiveness.  By-elections aren’t merely about them or our disappointment in the political process; they are about us, and our responsibilities.  Communities matter because we do - it’s true.  But so is the opposite: we are directly impacted, refined and made better by those places where we live.  To abandon that community at a time of political anger or feelings of emptiness is hardly an act of conscience, but of copping out.If we keep giving up, then what do we leave to our children or grandchildren - a political estate even more destitute than today?  Gaylord Nelson put it this way: “The ultimate test of a person’s conscience may be his or her willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.”Political campaigns bring policies and parties to the dividing point and people have to choose. The same holds true for citizens.  To say you have the right to not show up today and vote is like saying you have the right to let your neighbor starve or your child to go without an education.  You can do that, but what it says about a person who will do that is too troubling to mention.  Today is choice day - not just for political parties but citizens.  Voters have two choices from which they must choose - conscience or cowardice.  A third “c” - copping out - isn’t on the list.Our communities and our country are going through some of the hardest eras in years.  This is supposed to be one of those times when leadership from our political order emerges.  That remains to be seen.  It is time for citizens to encourage one another to grab the franchise and mold it into the politics of tomorrow we say we wish for.  Today isn’t so much about politicians - they’ll come and they’ll go.  It’s about us and about whether we have the courage of our convictions.

Previous
Previous

"Smashing Time" - Community Engagement Podcast (23)

Next
Next

Bar Code Generation (22)