Posted on | 12 April 2011
Declining voter turnout and public disengagement from the political process is a growing problem in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom (and probably elsewhere, but I will comment only the situation in countries with which I have a fair degree of familiarity). Some of this can be attributed to factors such as First-Past-the-Post, which results in parliaments that increasingly fail to reflect people’s actual voting patterns, leaving millions of voters literally disenfranchised with their electoral choices grossly under-represented or not represented at all.
Other factors are more intangible and thus difficult to measure. For example, many do not fully understand how our political system works, which makes it difficult for the average citizen to fully appreciate the work Parliament does, or to even be truly aware of the work done by their elected officials. If one cannot understand or recognize the value of an institution and the work it does, it is understandable that one would not feel any need to engage with that institution and the people who seek office to it.
Another factor would have to be the growing mistrust of politicians. Surveys conducted in both Canada and the UK repeatedly show that politicians are among the least trusted professions – if not dead last. One such survey conducted in the UK in 2009 found that only 1% of those surveyed trusted politicians. A similar survey conducted in 2006 (by a different polling firm) found that only 1.6% or respondents trusted politicians.
Surveys done in Canada show similar, albeit slightly less dismal, results. A Leger Marketing survey conducted in 2003 found that politicians were trusted by 14% of those surveyed. This was down from 18% the previous year, and dead last among the list of professions. Interestingly, a more recent survey done in 2010 still found politicians at the bottom of the list, but up significantly from 2003, with 25% of respondents expressing trust in their national politicians. While the Canadian numbers are certainly somewhat better than the UK numbers, it still does not bode well for politicians that three-quarters of citizens do not trust them, ranking them ahead of only car salespeople.
Why this mistrust? Both countries have seen their fair share of political scandals in recent years, but the timing of these doesn’t seem to explain the poll results. For example, 2009 is the year of the infamous expenses scandal in the UK, which you can read about in detail here. However, the details of MPs’ largesse with their expense claims came to light in May 2009, when the Telegraph obtained and started releasing information. The 2009 UK survey cited above, however, was conducted in April – before the full details of the expenses scandal were publicly known.
Similarly, what is arguably the biggest political scandal in Canada in recent years was the Sponsorship scandal (Wikipedia page here), which fully came to light in 2004, the year after the 2003 survey was conducted which found politicians trusted by only 14% of those surveyed. There had been smaller scandals prior to that, in 1999, 1997, and 1995, but it is questionable if these would have explained the 4 point drop in trust of politicians between 2002 and 2003. In the seven years between the 2003 survey and the most recent one conducted last year, there have been many alleged and proven misdoings by the government, yet more people expressed trust in politicians in 2010 than in 2003 (although politicians were still one of the least trusted professions).
Is the lack of trust in our politicians sufficient to explain the growing political disengagement? Murray Dobbins, writing in The Tyee, blames corporate globalization and the formation of the Trilateral Commission in the mid-70s, which favoured “lower expectations of government while encouraging consumerism”:
The U.S. is the model for this consumption democracy where citizens have been largely turned into consumers — politically apathetic, uninformed or easily misinformed, completely disconnected from their communities and finding meaning mostly in the shopping malls.
Canada, it seems, is not far behind. It had to happen eventually. After years of creating the consumption democracy and lowering expectations of traditional democracy, we have a population that is disengaged from its own community and its history. That means disconnected from a key source its moral core. Politics makes a difference if you are connected to each other. Otherwise, not so much.
Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt writes that we’ve become so cynical about politics that we’ve lost our capacity for outrage. She applies this to both the media and citizens. While Dobbins’ fixation with the Trilateral Commission borders a bit too much on the side of conspiracy theory for my liking, Delacourt’s observations of how the media and citizens treat current scandals rings truer: the political culture that exists today is one in which we measure findings of wrongdoings by a government by their impact on opinion polls rather than by the ethical and moral implications for our political system.
Whether or not one blames corporate globalization for initiating this slide towards cynicism and political disengagement, the actions of governments themselves certainly reinforce these trends. From this article from the Hill Times:
Prof. Drummond agreed, saying the debates may be the last chance for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and the other opposition leaders to shake up the continuing dominance of the Conservatives in the polls, despite controversies that shook his campaign last week, and a public perception that he is not being open on the hustings. It appears a series of government measures that provoked widespread public anger over the past two years, including Mr. Harper’s decision to shut down Parliament in 2008 and 2009, two recent RCMP investigations into former Tory staffers, and earlier scandals and allegations Mr. Harper has not been open about what he would do with a majority government, have not driven voters away.
“I’m kind of astounded actually how they have even increased their position in the polls with all kinds of things coming out that ought to cost them support, but don’t seem to be doing so,” said Prof. Drummond.
“That may mean that a lot of people have sort of made up their mind on some of their bases, maybe the leadership, maybe they don’t feel Ignatieff has captured their support or interest, they may be finding the commercials that say you ‘stay the course, and don’t change now’ effective,” he said.
Drummond states that the government’s actions have not driven voters away, that the Conservative Party’s poll numbers have actually increased. However, we don’t really know yet if this is indeed the case. Voter turnout in the last federal election was the lowest on record, 58.8%. Drummond’s statement will only hold true if voter turnout stays the same or increases this time around, and if that increase translates into more votes for the Conservatives. Just because someone is willing to take part in a phone survey doesn’t guarantee they’ll turn out to vote (not to mention that there are serious questions surrounding how accurate is political polling anymore). In the 2008 election, all the major parties except for the Greens received fewer votes than in 2006. The Conservatives won 19 more seats than they had in 2006, but their vote total decreased by 165,002 votes. Most significantly, it appears that a large block of traditional Liberal voters simply stayed away from the polls. The party saw its vote total drop by 846,230 votes in 2008 compared to 2006. Some of these Liberal voters might have voted for other parties, but that still would not account for all of those missing votes. It does seem fairly evident that the bulk of these Liberal voters didn’t vote for other parties in 2008, they simply did not vote. The Liberal Party blames Conservatives tactics, but as that article notes, “the performance of then-leader Stephane Dion and his highly unpopular Green Shift carbon tax proposal surely had more to do with it”.
Whether we blame corporate globalization, a media that measures political scandal by whether it will or will not “stick”, rather than as an ethical issue that impacts our democratic system, or voter suppression, the issue of political disengagement is a very real, and extremely serious one. I do believe that there are measures that could be taken that would re-engage many voters, electoral reform being at the top of the list. However, I don’t discount that it suits some parties (not all) to have a more disengaged, ill-informed electorate. Can the situation be reversed? I think it can. Is the political will there to start the process? On that one, I’m not so sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment