It’s election time in Ontario Canada and as voters we are again being treated to an ongoing series of attack ads comprised of nasty innuendoes, insults, mudslinging and name calling on TV and radio. While I understand the need for party leaders and candidates to differentiate themselves from their opponents, the maliciousness, low blows and targeted negativity that some appear to feel is acceptable behavior demonstrates a lack of respect for voters and for others involved in the political process.
The ongoing acrimony between some of the candidates in this election is a distraction from the serious issues facing the province today. And it’s frustrating for citizens who are looking for solid and credible leadership and clarity on what is planned by each candidate.
But isn’t this just what citizens should expect when there is a volatile political race underway? After all – politics is all about making points where you can and minimizing the hits someone else can take against you… isn’t it?
It may be the historical tradition but is it an effective strategy during an election campaign? Is it an acceptable strategy for politicians in general? And what is the cost??
And most importantly, what is voter reaction to this as a strategy?
When politicians and candidates are busy taking pot-shots at each other, it sets a tone of unprofessionalism and nastiness that quite frankly does not endear them to voters and does little to build confidence and trust in our leaders. I assume that the idea is based on the misguided premise that voters are ok with it. Many years ago as a child l learned from my grandmother that “we don’t make ourselves look bigger by making someone else look smaller”. It would appear to be a lesson lost on many politicians and candidates.
In my experience, much of the cynicism and skepticism that pervades our society with respect to our political system is linked to a lack of credibility and trust in our politicians. It would seem to me that if politicians are serious about wanting to increase the number of people who take our democratic political system seriously enough to show up on Election Day and cast their vote, there is a need for this credibility issue to be tackled head on.
If we look at the great leaders of history, they are characterized by a level of personal integrity and professionalism that built credibility rather than trashing it. It is hard to imagine Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Ed Broadbent, Winston Churchill, JF Kennedy or Jack Layton succumbing to the temptation to slip into personal attacks, partial truths, unsubstantiated accusations, misinformation innuendo to make their point. Yet we seem subjected to a steady stream of this in our current political climate – at all levels of government.
What are the long term implications?
There is an old African proverb that says “When 2 elephants fight it’s the grass that suffers the most”. The greatest casualty of a dirty or nasty political campaign based on is the serious discussion of serious issues requiring serious solutions.
But isn’t this just what citizens should expect when there is a volatile political race underway? After all – politics is all about making points where you can and minimizing the hits someone else can take against you… isn’t it?
It may be the historical tradition but is it an effective strategy during an election campaign? Is it an acceptable strategy for politicians in general? And what is the cost??
And most importantly, what is voter reaction to this as a strategy?
When politicians and candidates are busy taking pot-shots at each other, it sets a tone of unprofessionalism and nastiness that quite frankly does not endear them to voters and does little to build confidence and trust in our leaders. I assume that the idea is based on the misguided premise that voters are ok with it. Many years ago as a child l learned from my grandmother that “we don’t make ourselves look bigger by making someone else look smaller”. It would appear to be a lesson lost on many politicians and candidates.
In my experience, much of the cynicism and skepticism that pervades our society with respect to our political system is linked to a lack of credibility and trust in our politicians. It would seem to me that if politicians are serious about wanting to increase the number of people who take our democratic political system seriously enough to show up on Election Day and cast their vote, there is a need for this credibility issue to be tackled head on.
If we look at the great leaders of history, they are characterized by a level of personal integrity and professionalism that built credibility rather than trashing it. It is hard to imagine Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Ed Broadbent, Winston Churchill, JF Kennedy or Jack Layton succumbing to the temptation to slip into personal attacks, partial truths, unsubstantiated accusations, misinformation innuendo to make their point. Yet we seem subjected to a steady stream of this in our current political climate – at all levels of government.
What are the long term implications?
There is an old African proverb that says “When 2 elephants fight it’s the grass that suffers the most”. The greatest casualty of a dirty or nasty political campaign based on is the serious discussion of serious issues requiring serious solutions.
We have a crying need for frank and candid discussions and serious collaboration to solve the many crises facing us at a local, regional, national and global level. This means tough major decisions required to at all levels of government to move us forward into the next decades. When those discussions get mired in nastiness and the focus of the discussions is lost, we all lose.
When we elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf, we are entrusting them with the future of this country, its citizens and our contribution to the solution of global problems. We have no shortage of major problems requiring serious and credible solutions. Canadians have a right to expect leadership, integrity and credibility from their politicians – it is what we elect them to provide as they make critical decisions. Where is the professionalism in personal attacks and mud-slinging?
So as voters choose which candidate they will support in this or any election, that choice is influenced not only by how candidates conduct themselves during the election campaign but also what happens between elections. After all, how you do anything is how you do everything. And s/he who slings dirt, loses ground – at least for me and I believe for many other voters!
Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com
When we elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf, we are entrusting them with the future of this country, its citizens and our contribution to the solution of global problems. We have no shortage of major problems requiring serious and credible solutions. Canadians have a right to expect leadership, integrity and credibility from their politicians – it is what we elect them to provide as they make critical decisions. Where is the professionalism in personal attacks and mud-slinging?
So as voters choose which candidate they will support in this or any election, that choice is influenced not only by how candidates conduct themselves during the election campaign but also what happens between elections. After all, how you do anything is how you do everything. And s/he who slings dirt, loses ground – at least for me and I believe for many other voters!
Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com
For more information contact:
Ruth Sirman
President and Senior Mediator
CanMediate International
Phone: 613-256-3852
Cell: 613-298-8105
Email: rsirman@canmediate.com
Website: www.canmediate.com
