You can't have responsible government without responsible voters

The topic of voter apathy popped back into the news in recent days. Statistics Canada is reporting 23% of all eligible voters did not vote because they were not interested. I find this frustrating.

There are lots of things I don't do because I am not interested. I don't see movies or read books that don't interest me. I don't visit or vacation in places for which I have little interest. You get the point.

However, there is a category of things that I choose to do to even if they don't necessarily interest me. I follow news stories that don't always interest me, but which are nevertheless important enough that I feel I should stay informed. I talk with people at events - as they do with me - even if the topic isn't interesting. This is about being polite.

Finally, there are things I have to do whether they interest me or not. We all have some of that at work, for example.

So where does or should voting fit in? There is no easy answer.

Some argue that the root of our apathy lies in the dysfunction of our politics; that the squabbling, partisanship and the focus on "in the bubble" issues have created a disconnect between the voter and the democratic process. People aren't connecting because (a) the issues are not theirs and (b) the theatre of our politics is off-putting.

Another argument is that the way we vote is out of touch with a 21st century communications world. Lines, booths and slips of paper don't cut it in a 140-character, high speed, "give it to me quick world." The youth voter, the argument goes, is disconnected from the process of voting.

My thoughts?

I agree that our politics is flawed and is too often showing a disconnect between what is important to Canadians and what is discussed in Ottawa. Scandal increasingly trumps substance, and it is something which all of the parties have allowed to happen (and in some cases preferred to happen). I also agree that we should look for ways to introduce more technology into the voting process.

However, I think too often we are looking for easy answers and opportunities to point fingers. I get frustrated when I hear someone did not vote because it takes too much time, or because the issues did not appeal to them. A decision not to vote is being made the fault of someone else.

For me, these arguments reveal a disappointing absence of a sense of responsibility; responsibility which should be inherent in a healthy democracy. To say "make it compelling for me", or "make it easier for me" suggests that participation in the democratic process of your country should be driven by the same motivations behind going to a movie or choosing what to watch on television.

The problem of voter apathy is a collective one. Our politics needs to be more responsive to the challenges and opportunities we face. Our process needs to embrace 21st century technology. And we, the voter, need to step outside of our current mindset and rediscover the concept of civic duty and responsibility.

The birth of responsible government in Canada was a significant milestone in our development as a nation. However, for responsible government to work you need responsible voters. Interested?

The Curious Case of Canadian Complacency

This time next week, Canadian politics watchers will be sitting through their version of the Oscars or the Super Bowl. Yes, it will be election night and at the end of it we will know who won, by how much, who's in and who's out. We will then inevitably shift the the conversation towards asking "now what?"

With an eye towards the dust settling on #elxn41, I have found myself thinking about the notion of complacency and the impact it is having on our politics. This is not a new thought for me, but I think that events during this campaign and in fact in the months preceding it have given it fresh life in my thinking about the challenges we face in Canada.

Simply put, complacency is challenge number one. If we do not (a) understand it and (b) address it, then we are limiting our ability as a country to address all of the other challenges on the national list. And if we fail to re-set our levels of engagement, we will never truly be able to seize the opportunities in front of us.

The first question I ask myself is "why are we the way we are?" From where does our complacency originate? I have a couple of observations.

First, I believe in Canada we suffer from a form of economic complacency. Geography dealt us a strong hand. We have an abundance of natural wealth - historical wealth (lumber, fish, minerals) and future-oriented wealth (energy, potash). Geography has also graced Canada by virtue of our proximity to the U.S.

This good fortune has pre-disposed the country towards having a resource-based economy. It also contributed to the growth of a branch-plant economy which benefitted from the risks taken by others and by their entrepreneurial mind set.

I don't mean to suggest that we have succeeded or prospered by accident or without effort. Quite the contrary - our history has many stories of enterprise and vision.

However, I do think that as a country we have been content to reap the benefits of our geography when we could have done more to invest in them. We've done well, but we could have done so much better. A Canadian parable of the talents, if you will.

Second, I believe we suffer from political complacency. We believe in government, but don't hold it to account. We know what we want, but assume someone else will figure out how to deliver it. Our lack of understanding about how our system of government works has been laid bare in the past 18 months - sadly, at the very time such understanding is genuinely needed.

Why? I think there are a few reasons.

The dominance of majority governments - particularly through most of the 70s, all of the 80s and and 90s and the first half of the 21st century - has given Canadians the "luxury" of not needing to focus on what happens in Ottawa in the periods between elections. Yes, the noteworthy items (free trade, national unity) drew the requisite attention, but stability and predictability meant we did not need to be as engaged. We did not need to understand the system under which we are governed.

We also have an approach to policy in Canada which, while perhaps appropriate, can also be mind-numbing. The American theorist Charles Lindblom called it the "science of muddling through" and what he meant is that policy is typically made incrementally, in small steps. It is endlessly worked and re-worked.

This has been the Canadian model. Slow, reasoned, cautious? Yes. But engaging? No. This approach can work when one has a sense of destination or a vision. Whatever you want to say about the U.S., there is a strong sense of America.

However, in Canada I think we have incrementalism without the vision; without the sense of purpose. We have failed to tie the various policy streams together under a shared sense of what it means to Canada.

So what do we have?

Prosperity driven by geography, political stability, and an incremental approach to policy that lacks vision and common purpose. Taken together, I believe these characteristics have engendered a complacency mind set in Canada. I think they have shaped our levels of engagement, affected our see on the role of government, and limited our sense of the role we can and should play in our democracy.

Today, one week before an election that will one way or the other shape how we view government, what are we going to do about it? Are we prepared to remain complacent? Or are we ready to step forward and become more active participants in our democracy?

The atrophy of complacency or the momentum that flows from engagement? It is our decision.