Lack of civility in politics should concern us all
Public discourse ‘poisoned,’ writes Christopher Holcroft
Lying pieces of sh--. Old-stock Canadians. People like him. How many kids drowned in pools in Canada this summer? (As opposed to refugee children fleeing war.)
These have been the words that have come to define the Canadian election to date. They are born of anger and fear, delivered in deception and ignorance.
That we have reached this point with five days to go in the campaign is not necessarily a surprise. Canada’s celebrated civility has been on the wane for a while. Consider: year-round partisan advertisements that descended from outrageous to vicious as the election neared; systematic political attacks on civic institutions — the bureaucracy, courts, media, and civil society organizations — intended to inform democratic debate and serve as a counterweight to the excesses of political power; and irresponsible rhetoric that plagues all facets of our discourse, from the chambers of Parliament to online forums.
A report released last month by the nonpartisan initiative Civil Election looked at these issues and concluded that Canada has a “poisoned discourse.” The report was based on a survey of 25 national civil society groups working on issues integral to the well-being of the country, such as health care and education.
The findings were startling: Most expected a nastier election than in 2011 with more negative ads, some were worried their supporters could be targeted for political attack, and all but one favoured outside election observers to monitor for fairness.
For some pundits these concerns are easily dismissed as the “white noise” of politics. They argue that kitchen table issues are what matter, not the mechanics of democracy.
Yet what if someone was using disrespectful, even inflammatory language at your kitchen table? What if they were offering misleading answers to your questions, and causing an argument within your family? What response would
We are witnessing the political leveraging of certain types of hot-button issues right now.
that provoke?
The pundits further point out that Canadians can be segmented into small pockets of interest, driven to vote for — or against — a candidate based on a single, hot-button issue. We are witnessing the political leveraging of certain types of hot-button issues right now — from security to citizenship to religious wear.
This strategy has proven successful in the past, and may again. However, it delivers a punch to the gut of our democracy, dividing Canadians with appeals to our base emotions, and distracting us from having serious discussions on more pressing issues.
It also ignores the difficult truth of governing. Policy development is complex work, requiring understanding and co-operation. It is the purview of the thoughtful and patient, not the vapid and rash. An attack ad is not going to make the climate change challenge go away.
In its report, Civil Election proposes some specific ideas for creating a more inclusive, respectful, and thoughtful politics, including:
Developing a code of conduct for political advertising;
Amending the rules around campaign spending and fixing the Fair Elections Act;
Setting up a permanent, non-partisan committee to organize national leaders’ debates during elections and providing tools to community groups planning all-candidates meetings in their ridings; and Strengthening civic literacy. The state of public discourse should concern all of us. An inclusive society relies on a civil debate, one in which all Canadians feel, and are, welcome to participate. It is not difficult to imagine the dangers posed to a diverse country by a political discourse infected with suspicion, misinformation, and mean-spiritedness.
This election is an opportunity to begin to change course.
Another concept political pundits like to speak about is the “ballot question.” Well, here is a ballot question for Canadians: Which candidate are you least likely to want to throw out of your kitchen? Vote for that one.