In the aftermath of the recent civic elections, with the disappearance of all those election signs, the act of democracy is a fait accompli. We exercised our right of enfranchisement, and now we will once again recede into obscurity, until the next election, when our votes and support are once again sought.
There is just a hint of cynicism in the preceding paragraph, as democracy is a flawed system of government. It is, by its very nature, people looking out for their own interests, rather than the interests of society as a whole. This election showed the divisions within our community, as blocks and groups pushed their agenda, looking to influence the makeup of our city council, with the expressed interest of promoting their various causes. But do these causes help our city, help the citizens of St. Albert, or are they just causing harm?
The nature of our political system has seen the rise of professional politicians, which means they are susceptible to the plethora of interest groups within our society. If they fail to placate the interests of the various groups, they face the ire of those associations, facing the loss of their chosen occupation. It is a no-win situation; they are marred and maligned for whatever choice they make, but their interests are best served, and justified, by making the majority happy, ignoring the impact on the minority. But do these decisions help society, as a whole, or do they just placate the interests of fragmented groups within our community?
Maybe it is because of all these divisions that our city cannot get past the same issues that have plagued it for 30 years. We are caught in a political loop, as politicians look to protect their careers, and the interest groups, like baby birds in a nest, look to have their causes satiated. Maybe it is time to starting thinking differently about how we all participate in politics.
The opposite of democracy, according to Aristotle, is polity. This works on the ideal that the electorate would make decisions based upon the welfare of society, rather than their own individual interests. Of course, our system chooses representatives, so a model of polity would become the objective of those elected councils. They would be charged with taking care of the public good. Obviously, defining what is the public good in our modern society becomes problematic, as all those interest groups are going to continue to plead their case for each special cause, and we are back to our original dilemma.
Maybe, in our new approach, the question should not be how to placate the happiness of the greatest number in our society, but rather to consider how such decisions will impact the weakest and the most vulnerable in our community. The downside is that such a system may slow down “progress” within our society, but as this election’s issues were really no different than previous ones, this may be a non sequitur.
The interests groups are still going to push their causes, and the politicians are still going to earn the ire of portions of society, but that is the nature of the political game: not everyone will truly be happy with the decisions of our politicians.
Of course, this author acknowledges that it is naĂŻve to expect changes to the way we pursue politics in Canada and St. Albert. We are thus fated to a democratic system that leads to ad hoc, inefficient decisions, but hopefully it has given us something to reflect upon: there are other ways to look at decision-making in politics.
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
