Some Reflections on Citizen Engagement

Last evening I was part of a panel that included journalist and filmmaker Phil McLeod, former civic politician Gina Barber, and myself, who were asked to speak on the subject of citizen engagement in a venue held by London's Citizen's Panel. We were selected because all three of us have blogged repeatedly on this subject. Below are highlights of my remarks to those assembled.Throughout North America, and in Europe, we continue to hear the refrain in the troubling days of democracy – “We need to take back the public space.” The sentiment is clear. Yet it would be valid to say that we as citizens never had the public space. Other than in our earliest days, we opted to have decisions made by representatives that we elected, in hopes that they would make decisions that reflected those that elected them. As long as these politicians acted responsibly, the system appeared to work overall.In the last while, however, the democratic system has been failing, both at home and in numerous places around the world. Many dimensions have contributed to this, but for our purpose it’s important to acknowledge that significant trust has been lost, not only in politics but the political system itself. This has resulted in a strong push towards citizen engagement – a process whereby citizens raise their voice and their efforts to act as a complementary body with their politicians in order to insure that community voices are heard and acknowledged.But this begs an important question: are citizens actually capable of that responsibility? For over a century we have largely permitted others to undertake the political work for us and we are having to learn the structure, motivations and outcomes of political decisions in a hurry, as we attempt to make democracy more accountable.Despite our abundant concerns, citizens are still having trouble coordinating. In my previous blog I quoted W. B. Yeats, and his sentiments are timely:“The center cannot hold when the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.”We all know those who fit into either category. The majority simply aren’t interested in the political process because they are too busy or have lost faith in it. The largest part of this group didn’t vote in the last civic election and are just going on with their business.The second group is often filled with people with an agenda. Many are partisan and just can’t help but to continue to define politics as being against this party or that. Despite the desire of Canadians to move past the divisions of party, these folks are still stuck in it. In their stridency and genuine desire to see political change, they behave in a manner that turns average Canadians off because in their ideology they merely reflect the rigidity people have already seen and despise in the political order. They delight in attacking the Liberals, the Conservatives, or the NDP, when in reality the majority of Canadians have rejected such simplistic definitions. They often take part in engagement exercises but become so divisive and opinionated that they drive others away from the engagement process.So, yes, there is a still a lot of immaturity out there among the citizenry, but that’s to be expected when we have only recently decided to acknowledge the problem of politics and seek to find ways in which we ourselves can assist in its renaissance. We are in an evolutionary phase – an early stage in which we are attempting to immerse ourselves in a process that traditionally has been left to politicians. We still have much to learn, but we are getting there.Yet we have two clear problems that remain. The first is the attitude of many of the elected politicians. One city representative told me three weeks ago that citizen engagement is all well and good, but the ultimate form of engagement is an election. People elect representatives with a mandate and it’s their job to carry it out. This is the kind of self-serving reasoning that drives citizens to distraction. Less than a 50% voter turnout in a place like London, Ontario is hardly a mandate. And many of the decisions that have been made since the past election were never part of the original electoral debates. They must be worked out in real-time with their constituents, as issues arise.The second issue strikes closer to home. Despite many sincere efforts at engagement, most citizens still remain outside the process, leaving a vacuum for the politicians to fill with their “mandates.” In other words, we can’t “sell” engagement. The faithful come out to the engagement sessions but experience trouble filling the room. Our job will more and more become, not just convincing politicians to listen, but getting our neighbours to join us in the grand renewal exercise. And for that to happen we will have to become more understanding of others points of view and stop attempting to portray ourselves as the experts. We are in an evolutionary phase, as mentioned earlier, and we should be humble about that and learn in the process. To pretend we know it all will only drive away new recruits just at the time we deeply require them.We are presently in a phase where citizen engagement is stretching its muscles worldwide. The results, however, are mixed. We have to show that we have characters of openness and flexibility if it is to succeed. For the political order, it is beginning to comprehend that its days of unilateral control are over. The days of an effective working relationship between politicians and their people are not as far off as they were. Engagement is taking place all over London. The key now is to coordinate those many voices into one clear and resounding message to the political order. Citizens, however, are not there yet.