One major problem I have with people's perception of politics in this day and age is: the idea that we will elect a leader and he or she will solve our 'problems.'
This is an incredibly naive way of looking at politics and here is why.
First of all, political leaders don't accomplish change on their own - that's not how democracies are supposed to work. If we had a system where leaders could just change whatever they wanted at will, that would be a dictatorship. Changes are accomplished by legislation or by regulation. Boring, I know.
So, regulatory changes can be relatively straight-forward if you're the president of a large country, but still there will be push back from people who want the status quo to be maintained. The question becomes: who is building a more convincing case and/or building more public pressure? What are the consequences of saying "yes" or "no" to either side? Is a compromise possible?
When elected officials make decisions, they are keenly aware of who is paying attention, who is in attendance, who is checked out, and who is angry. People think that showing up or sending a letter or petition is meaningless, but they could not be more wrong.
They could not be more wrong.
Each person, each organization, that demonstrates support or opposition for an idea or policy change, is on the radar of the people who make the decision. Corporations know this, and that's why they have lobbyists, whose job it is to monitor regulatory and legislative changes, and to shepherd things through the process.
But, the other key element in making change happen, strange as it sounds, lies in the arcane practice of Robert's Rules of Order. And that is the fact that you can't vote on a motion until someone has seconded it.
So a Member of Parliament could stand up and propose a Guaranteed Annual Income for all Canadians, but unless another MP stood up to second that motion, no vote will ever be taken, and no discussion will ever occur.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty of politics, a voice in the wilderness is precisely that - one voice, alone.
Once a motion gets seconded, then it's time for debate, and eventually a vote.
So the question is: what kinds of change motions are we willing to support? Do we have enough people to create pressure? what kinds of change to do we value? And most importantly, is there someone to second the motion?
The idea that a leader accomplishes change with his or her magic wand could not be more harmful to our understanding of politics and the democratic process.
The truth is, in my view, that leaders create change once people have demanded it, and there is willing support among their peers in the deciding body.
Who those people are, and what those changes look like, depend entirely on the actors involved, their resources, their priorities and their relationships.
