As a relative newbie to the op-ed pages of the Globe and Mail, I was a bit overwhelmed by the response our op-ed received. Who said no one reads newspapers anymore?
In any event, thank you to everyone who responded to our
piece last week. I wanted to take this opportunity to summarize and comment on the major points (positive and negative) that we heard and raise a few questions for ongoing discussion.
Overall, one of the most notable observations was the general tendency to characterize this op-ed against
one written earlier by Lawrence Martin on the political disconnect between young and old. His central point was that young people, while justified in rejecting the political status quo, were simply too lazy to do anything about it.
While it's true that Martin's column did prompt me to write, these Martin vs. Loat comments tended to ignore the common ground between the pieces. Although I haven't spoken to Martin directly, my sense is we'd agree that our politics can be more engaging. While it's true that I don't place singular blame for this on youth (or anyone, for that matter) and I don't think Martin did enough to acknowledge (never mind explore) ways that young people are seeking to change the world*, I do agree that young people don't vote much and it wouldn't be so bad if they did (more on that below).
I also thought that the Martin vs. Loat characterization obscured three closely related but distinct points. Almost all of 100+ comments received fell into one or more of these categories.
The first had to do with the ambition and inspiration of our politics and public discourse. Most observers agreed with the central point of the op-ed, which is that all of us - whether in the media, in politics or in private life - have a shared responsibility for improving this. Several suggested ways in which this could happen (e.g., several contributors to the G&M's
comments section advocated various institutional reforms, such as proportional representation and more open nominations) and one email to me wondered about an informal "community custodian" role that could form a part of many more people's identies. Samara is also undertaking its
MP Exit Interview project as one way to advance understanding and solutions.
The next two areas of comment concerned young people and their engagement in public life. The first was ruminations on why people do or don't vote. Many of these observations tied closely to those in the point above (i.e., "why would I vote for the same old?"). The second, most forcibly argued by
Dave Eaves, is that voting is less important and ignores the important public work young people are actually doing. Several other people pointed out that while they did vote, they felt their
volunteer or NGO work had greater impact.
In disentangling these two inter-related issues, it's first important to distill what we know and don't know about participation in public life before raising some questions for future discussion.
On youth voting, the
facts are clear. The overall decline in electoral participation in Canada, as in other countries, is the result of lower turnout among the young. As a recent
study commissioned by Elections Canada points out, this phenomenon is not new. In the 1960s, two-thirds of new voters cast a ballot. By the 1980s, it was 50 percent and in the 1990s through to this decade, it's about 40 percent. Those who don't vote when they're young are less likely to do so when they're old, even moreso now than in the past, suggesting we can expect lower turnout in the future.
The reasons for this, however, are less well-understood. As one of the more thought-provoking
columnists I know (correctly) pointed out to me, there is scant evidence that generational socialization (such as the inward nature of our government's activities in the 1980s hypothesis I posit in the article) has any impact on attitudes or actions. One could equally argue that government cut-backs might make those affected even more likely to stand up and speak up.
While this is true, it is also true that the compilation of
available evidence, albeit limited, suggests that the decline in youth turnout is more likely due to "changes in youths' socio-demographic situation and/or their values and attitudes than changes in the electoral landscape." (page 17, and the detail is provided from pages 13-16) More research is clearly needed, and the best we little people can do is suggest ideas at this stage.
And here's where it gets trickier. This same paper points out that those who are interested in or engaged in politics, and even those who engage in protest or non-traditional political activities, are more likely to vote than those who aren't. So if it's true that young people are more engaged in NGOs or other forms of engagement, why isn't that reflected in higher turnout? Perhaps Martin is right and the young aren't as involved as we think they are. Perhaps we're plagued, young and old, with an growing case of "why bother?" (many of the comments I received were in this camp, although the fact that they wrote suggests all is not lost). Perhaps there are more important factors, like the later maturation of young adults today.** Or perhaps something more fundamental is going on, like the "rejection of the whole system" hypothesis that Eaves posits.
The bottom line is, we don't know. Furthermore, voting is only one indicator of the larger issue. For what it's worth, it's my belief that if you're interested in change and the public good, it's illogical to ignore the work of government, policy and politics. It's not always fun and it's almost never easy. But it is important and potentially very (as our business friends say) high leverage. For example, for all the extremely important and innovative work that takes place in the NGO sector (of which I am a part), these organizations spent a small percentage of the total dollars governments do on these same issues. They also lack government's regulatory power and easy ability to frame the agenda.*** If one can motivate a small change in government on whatever the issue, it can make a big difference.
Which brings me back to the original point of my article. If we don't all do what we can to make politics more inspiring, to treat people who pursue public life or advance public ideas with respect and to strengthen the culture of public service in Canada and beyond, our potential for achieving great things will dimish significantly.
P.S. I also wanted to acknowledge the two critical comments I received, both which encouraged greater precision in my ideas and writing. You can read one of them
here. As an amateur writer at best, I'm grateful that you took the time and appreciate the reminder of the importance of clarity in thought and words. Any and all comments are very welcomed.
*I also can't help but wonder if he was just trying to stir the pot and provoke young people into the discussion. If so, my email/Facebook inbox and the number of tweets suggested his mission was at least partially accomplished!
**Some early research from Europe suggests this may be at issue.
***Approximately
half of the voluntary sector's revenues come from government. Tax policy also ensures charitable donations are also heavily tax advantaged.