A commentary by the president of the Saanich South B.C. Conservative Riding Association.
The July 14 commentary “Raucous Saanich council meeting not true gauge of public opinion” begs for response. As a fan of democracy, I’m happy to provide it.
It is apparent that Jack Sandor believes participatory democracy ceases after the votes are counted, and that the job of elected officials is to doggedly ignore public input on specific topics and simply engage in a form of temporary dictatorship.
I vehemently disagree.
Politicians are notorious for breaking promises or embarking on costly, foolish or unpopular policies.
Public sentiment and direct voter input provides valuable feedback to office-holders and may in some cases spur a course-correction, a change in policy or an adjustment in approach.
As for public meetings, they hardly make matters “worse.” They are in fact one of the few remaining ways in which citizens can participate directly in political decision-making.
The average citizen certainly isn’t able to attend the legislature and give Premier David Eby a stern lecture on where our next ferry should be built, or travel to Ottawa and attempt to confront Prime Minister Mark Carney over trade policy.
Local government is the last bastion of direct participatory democracy.
Complaining about the behaviour of some individuals at a public meeting is — to recycle a hackneyed but useful metaphor — like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It is also troubling that Sandor engages in a subtle form of ad hominem attack on those who were present at the meeting and whom it was claimed used “homophobic insults.”
Did everyone engage in this conduct? Who exactly? Was it one person? Ten?
The commentary doesn’t say, or provide any evidence.
So we are left with an unspecified and serious allegation which serves only to smear an entire group.
This is a bad faith rhetorical tactic and serves only to undermine the point of Sandor’s commentary.
Further, he seems to be of the view that public opposition is irrelevant given he is (allegedly) on the side of the majority.
While that may or may not be the case, it is no argument against public input.
As John Stuart Mill wrote, “Only through diversity of opinion is there, in the existing state of human intellect, a chance of fair play to all sides of the truth.”
In other words, whether you believe you are in the “majority” or not is irrelevant; diversity of opinion and participation in the process are paramount considerations, particularly in important public policy decisions.
Can democracy be a messy, raucous business? Yes it can.
But what is the alternative?
An oppressive, authoritarian consensus? A supine, disinterested citizenry? A lazy, cloistered elite?
Most decision-makers I know want as much feedback and input as they can get in order to make the best decision possible. Public opinion on critical planning decisions should be unfettered and unfiltered.
Sandor may be uncomfortable with citizens having their say, but I am not. In fact, I was heartened to hear that there are local residents motivated and willing to show up at a public meeting to have their voices heard.
We need more of that in Canada, not less. Anyone who doesn’t like it can stay home.