In an entrenched political and economic system, trying to change the status quo is notoriously difficult. A local example of just how difficult is the fact that two councillors who ran on platforms of change have decided not to run again.
In some ways you can hardly blame them.
I know how hard these councillors work, to the point of seriously affecting their personal lives. The pay they receive is ridiculously low given the time they spend.
They work without any constituency staff to help them and as hard as our local MLA and MP, who make, respectively, six and 10 times as much. Because they are so accessible and their decisions have such immediate impact, public criticism can seem more personal.
Perhaps most frustrating, their original promise of progressive change has been hard to keep. This dilemma is common to many communities, even where there is support for change.
The role of social movement organizations such as child-care advocates, anti-poverty groups and environmental organizations is to demonstrate there is public support for dealing seriously with these issues. They create the space for elected officials to actually do progressive things.
Politicians cannot change the status quo on their own. Former United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt once told civil rights activists lobbying him for change that he agreed with all their demands. Then he said, “Go out there and make me do it.”
But Roosevelt was extraordinary because most politicians do not take advantage of such movements. They even treat them with suspicion and respond to their passionate (and sometimes angry) demands for change with defensiveness.
It is often a tragic standoff: progressive politicians fighting with progressive citizens while the status quo goes unchanged. It also has to be said that not all community groups are easy to work with, so there is blame on both sides.
Why is there a reluctance on the part of elected representatives to work with activist groups? After all, not only are these groups able and willing to support change, they are often very knowledgeable about the issue at hand.
Perhaps it is too risky. They are not always professionals and not accountable like city staff is.
The result is elected officials, especially new ones, begin to rely more and more on paid staff and senior bureaucrats for direction and advice even though bureaucracies are by their very nature unsympathetic to change. Instead of providing bold political leadership, councillors over time begin to behave more like administrators.
So when residents complain, civic governments tend to circle the wagons: they feel under siege by residents. Progressive councillors can end up defending the status quo they had intended to challenge.
The lesson? Democracy is messy and it has to be. There are real choices to be made about a community’s future and that often means conflict.
Progressive councillors need to present a clear vision for the community and pledge to achieve it working with residents and their organizations. It not only works, it can be a lot more rewarding.
Murray Dobbin is a Powell River freelance writer and social commentator.
