Don’t Take the Bait on Parties and Slates

While contemplating my decision to run in the upcoming election, the Alberta Government proposed and approved a broad stroke of changes to the way that municipal elections are run in this province. One of those major changes was the introduction of political parties and slates.

This is a pilot program for the cities of Calgary and Edmonton, and we’ll see what comes of it.

I have to tell you that I have concerns with this approach to municipal governance. Most importantly I believe it shifts accountability away from the candidate, or councillor. If a slate or party decides on a certain policy that a large group of Ward 9 residents disagree with, to whom do these residents express their concerns? Their councillor? The party leader? What if that is an unelected individual? Elon Musk anyone?

We’ve all witnessed our MPs and MLAs tow the party line - closing their eyes and ears to our valid concerns because they’re not actually in charge. Sending us soulless copy and pasted responses, dreamed up by spin doctors in back rooms of party offices.

When knocking on doors in Ward 9, I can’t help but wonder what it would be like to be presenting pre-approved messaging on issues that I believe to be important to voters. Rather than listening to what these issues mean to them and how I might be of help in their pursuits of a good life, here in Calgary. Am I there to listen and learn, or am I there to sell a set of prescribed policies, decided without the engagement of said voter?

This approach is a rigid one. we’re beginning to see just how rigid while we observe the happenings at the provincial and federal levels. These two levels of government have essentially turned into two-party systems, with an increasing number of citizens feeling left out of the conversation. Is this the path to better representation, or is it a more direct path to centralized power for an elite group of people you never actually encounter in your community?

It’s often argued that introducing a party system at a municipal level will lead to a more efficient council. But how likely is it we’ll simply end up seeing two, maybe three points of view argue over the best course of action? We’re encouraging more troops on the ground and a game of war when our communities require compromise and collaboration. Which of these approaches sounds more inclusive?

This brings me to my last concern with introducing parties and slates. Sure, more points of view at the table can be more difficult to navigate. But actually, this type of work (public governance) requires people with the capacity to meet that challenge, not sidestep it.

The best leaders are generally remembered for their ability to bring people together, and to get things done in an orderly and efficient way. For lack of character, we’re beginning to produce politicians that say “We can get this done, just elect me and 8 of my friends”. This invitation doesn’t raise the bar for the quality of candidates that come forward to govern, in my opinion, it lowers it. It invites a “pack mentality” and that’s an exclusive and hierarchical approach. What if we, by electing on a party platform alone, elect a non-leader, a placeholder? A runt, to further the metaphor, in the “pack” that is present by “blood” but with little purpose to the cause.

Independent candidates have teams of people that stand behind them and help them on their way too. But we have to stand on our own two feet and say “This is me”, “this is my position”, and “This is my way of doing things”. I believe that we all inherently expect that kind of accountability in our politicians, but have you noticed its absence lately? Have you been disappointed lately? I think we can combat that lack of accountability by demanding better. And if efficiency is what we seek, then we all should leave a little more room on the table for compromise.

My name is Harrison M. Clark. I wrote this. I am running as an independent candidate in Ward 9’s municipal election.