Yes, this is about the federal election
The federal election is almost over. I am very interested in it, but at the same time I’m ready for it to end. I’m sure there have been mock elections in social studies classes across the country. I can almost guarantee every single one of them has had more substance than the real one.
I’m not saying this election is any stranger than previous federal elections: this election is strange partly because any discussion of ideas has taken a backseat to gossip and name-calling – just like all the other elections. Still, it’s strange since the election is supposed to be about setting priorities and strategy for the next four years (isn’t it??)
When in Rome, do as the Romans do, they say. Well, we aren’t in Rome. Perhaps I need to look at it metaphorically. Perhaps Ottawa is our Rome. Well, I’m not in Ottawa either. I don’t remember that idiom having a line to tell us what to do when not in Rome, but I think I will assume we can go ahead and be ourselves. I’m going to take that as a licence to think outside the box.
So I’m going to talk about an outside-of-Rome idea. It isn’t actually a new idea at all, but a fairly old idea. Old enough that it counts as new because history in this day and age is all ancient history.
Do you want to start with the history of suffrage in Canada, or with the tangentially related Monty Python skit?
Hmmm. Thought so.
There’s a Monty Python skit where a couple is in a restaurant and the waiter asks them if they would care for something to talk about, hands them menus, and they choose to talk about philosophy. They struggle with the conversation, discussing whether all philosophers have the letter ‘s’ in their name, and then end up talking about famous musicians.
What does this have to do with anything? Well, you’ll have to wait and see. You’re the one who wanted to start with that.
We did it! We made a democracy!
Suffrage comes from the latin word suffragium meaning “this annual general meeting (AGM) is painfully long and painfully boring.” It actually means ‘the right to vote’. Because we wouldn’t want to just say “the right to vote”, when we can use a perfectly good word in a dead language that is the same number of syllables.
Canada got universal suffrage in 1919. Well, if you don’t include Canadians of recent Chinese, Japanese, Indian or indigenous heritage. Okay, so Canada really got universal suffrage in 1960, per se. So it has only been 59 years since Canada gave every adult the right to vote. Only 49 years since this job was completed at the provincial level.
We have tweaked rules about criminals and Canadians overseas, but for most of us the job is done, we have a functioning democracy, so that is that. Looking broadly, election results make sense. Canada is moderate compared to many nations, with lower levels of populism and extremism in our politics (doesn’t mean we don’t get outraged and horrified, but relative to other countries…). We’ve got it good. We shouldn’t mess with it. It works, right?
I’m a bit of a tinkerer, myself. I’m not content with the status quo. (See? Latin is alive and well.) I think we can do better. Don’t worry, I’m not blathering on about electoral reform again (but if you missed that, I did a four part series on it last year – you can find it from the wakeimake summary page…).
We live in a time when we are awash in information, but from sources that are fed to us (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). If we do go searching for it online, we will find that which is most popular. Unreliability is an issue, and there is a risk of siloing ourselves (not on purpose, but based on what our preferred sources give us) to the point where our opinions are potentially manipulated.
We are proud of being a well-functioning democracy. As we should be. But a well-functioning democracy needs an informed electorate. Ergo, I think there are some improvements we can make to our democracy in the social media era.
We cannot take the straight line to an informed electorate, though, and make requirements based on literacy, or make people pass a politics quiz, etcetera, in order to vote. Such things have happened around the world, and they happen in the name of racism or classism (by excluding those of lower educational attainment and therefore generally lower socio-economic status and that disproportionally affects those of a disadvantaged race or group).
Suffer-age
So I say it is time to put the suffer into suffrage. We should have to work for it a little bit. Waltzing every four years into a polling station and marking an ‘x’ and leaving is really an insufficient level of engagement.
This needs to be done carefully: we don’t want to exclude people based on geography or ethnicity or language or socio-economic status or any other variable. So, we need choices. In order to vote everyone should have to do one of the following:
1. Work with Elections Canada (or equivalent for other levels of government, such as Elections Nunavut here). This would include those working at polling stations. These people are involved already.
2. Be a member of a political party or work for a legislature or an MP. These people are involved in their own way, too.
3. That still leaves a lot of us out here that don’t want to be part of a political party, and we need some other way. There could be a variety of additional choices, but one option I find very appealing is a modern equivalent of the salons of 18th century France (these are not hair salons. This has nothing to do with hair. Okay it does a little bit, but that’s 11 paragraphs down). A similar idea was the coffeehouses of England around the same time. These were informal places where people would gather for news and conversation.
Nowadays we get lots of news and conversation, but we lack discussion (no, shouting at each other or talking to a group of identical-minded people on social media and in the comment sections of newspapers does not count because neither of those forms of communication are discussion).
Now, remember the Monty Python skit where they order a conversation but don’t have the faintest idea about philosophy? Well, we need to avoid that. If we shove people into a room together and tell them to talk about foreign aid, it would go badly. So we need to avoid that with a bit more information and a bit less pressure.
Today if you go into a coffee shop and start talking to people you don’t know about politics, they will either leave or shift awkwardly in their seat waiting for you to leave. We don’t need more of that, either.
Modern-day Salons
Imagine, rather, going to a venue that may or may not be a coffee shop on a certain afternoon or evening when a certain topic is up for discussion. They have a calendar of such events with different topics on different days, and you choose to go to this one because the topic interests you. The topics would all have some policy relevance at the federal, provincial/territorial or local level. When you get there you first watch a short video or something like that with a summary of the issue, the different opinions and so on (perhaps put together in sections by the parties or by experts in the field). Then you go in. There’s a bunch of people having coffee, tea, water, whatever (but not alcohol), maybe nibbling on snacks. Someone is MCing. They will pass the microphone/megaphone/conch shell to someone who has something to say. Or read texts people send from within the room if they have a question or a comment but want to remain anonymous. Perhaps you have to stay at least 15 minutes, then you get registered on the way out to show you have done your duty and qualify to vote. Of course, hopefully people stay longer. Everyone would given 2 hours off a year from work to attend, to make sure that isn’t a barrier.
The idea is twofold: you are engaged in at least one topic related to at least one election you will be voting in, and you will have a chance to engage with other people in a human setting and share ideas. Real people often moderate each other’s views. It is a function of being creatures that live in groups. You might learn something, you might share something of value to others. You can even go more than once a year.
This idea is a bit of a leap, I know. I won’t hold my breath. There is a reason you act like Romans when in Rome – because they don’t like things any other way. I’m not sure the status quo Romans will go for this. Especially the libertarian ones.
There will be blowhards that will be there every single time you go, making you wonder if they are there every day. they will blather on and on, happy to hear their own voice. It might be therapeutic for them, but it would be painful. Give the MC a microphone with a cord on it so they can rip it back out of the clutches of the blowhards. Or at least an egg timer. And there will probably need to be security there for some topics.
It would therefore cost a bit of money. The benefits are indirect and hard to see, but I think they are real. Ad astra per aspera (through adversity, success).
Policy discussions for all!
Take for example the conversations around Bill 21 in Quebec. The so-called secularism law that bans religious symbols including head coverings from school teachers and other provincial public servants with public jobs. Apparently 70% of Quebecers support the law. Wow. How? Why? Well, because they believe in the separation of church and state. Oh. That sounds reasonable. I guess that makes sense. Except no, it doesn’t.
The state is not the same as an individual working for it. Is the state, through it’s policies and public statements and actions, allowed to be gendered in a certain direction? To be prejudiced on the basis of race? To make judgements based on people’s age? No, but it never occurred to me to be suspicious of the state’s gender motives if the clerk at the motor vehicles office is female. Nor has that made me contemplate a sex change, but Quebec seems to fear religious persuasion by its employees. So should all employees not have to hide their gender, race and age as well as their religion?
Wouldn’t it make more sense then to make all teachers and judges and so on wear large head coverings, such as ten gallon hats, sombreros, or, for judges and lawyers, those big curly powdered wigs? Then everyone looks the same, you can’t tell who is Sikh or Jewish, and no one’s rights are trampled and the same goal is met? Why is this idea both ridiculous and yet better? What does that say about Bill 21?
Have people thought this through or does it just have a superficial appeal? What if a good chunk of the population engaged in salon-style discussions of the topic for at least 15 minutes, face-to-face with people who see things differently (and perhaps even can be seen to be different)? Or maybe they have a really good point on why Bill 21 is good and I need to hear it?
We Need To Bring Back Discussion (You Don’t Agree? Let’s Talk About It over a Cup of Tea)
Right now we live in a time of polarization. The popularity-based algorithms that drive content on social media only add to that – people react to bold/shocking/clearly black or white views much more than to measured moderate ones. Condemnant quo non intellegunt (they condemn what they do not understand).
What is with all the latin phrases here? Well, the birth of city-state democracy happened in ancient Greece. But democracy cannot be taken for granted: Greece fell to the Romans, and democracy fell – in increments – to the Roman Empire. Today we do not speak a derivative of Greek. We speak a language based on Latin – the language of the conquerors of democracy. Sure, they absorbed a lot of Greek, including the word democracy. But latin is the language that gave us the words prince, emperor and csar.
Huh? Well, democracy cannot be taken for granted, first of all, but even more importantly it needs to be nurtured and reworked and improved to keep it strong as times change.
Imagine if, during an election and between elections too, there was a little more talk of policies and strategies – by candidates, but also by the Salon-visiting public. Monty Python might agree. So perhaps a new bureaucratic hoop for voters to jump through is less strange than doing nothing. To that, the ancient Greeks might agree – though not likely the Romans. Luckily we aren’t in Rome, and when not in Rome, change is possible.
Post Scriptum:
In the meantime, at least vote on Monday, and if you want to see what the polls are saying in your riding, something we hardly ever see or hear in the news, go to 338canada.com. Carpe lunae diem!
Resources
338canada.com – Go look at it. Now. Find your riding and see what the polls say for your riding. Remember the accuracy for each riding is low, so it is not a done deal – you still need to go vote.
Monty Python skit: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=monty+python+restaurant+buy+a+conversation
Did you know that Google Translate will translate to and from latin? Want to know what Carpe lunae diem means? Click here!
