We have a new Liberal leader in Canada in Justin Trudeau and the Conservatives lost no time in treating us, the voters, to an ongoing series of attack ads comprised of partial quotes taken out of context, insults and nastiness on TV and radio. While
I understand the need for party leaders and candidates to differentiate
themselves from their opponents, the maliciousness, low blows, dishonesty and
targeted negativity that some appear to feel is acceptable behavior
demonstrates a lack of respect for voters and for the
political process itself.
What I do believe is that if a party has so little to offer that the best they can do is point out imaginary faults in their opponents then they have no business being in power. I wish politicians would explain to me how nastiness, mudslinging, exaggeration, taking quotes out of context and creating dishonest and erroneous impressions about their opponents demonstrates credibility, trustworthiness and professionalism. Because I want the people running my country to be trustworthy, credible and professional - after all they are the most visible 'face' of the country when they are in power.
The
ongoing perception of the government that we find these attacks
acceptable is misguided and wrong. We don't - and as voters we are neither stupid
nor likely to forget. They are a cheap distraction from the serious issues facing the province today that need to be addressed..and frustrating for citizens. We are looking for solid and credible
leaders who are willing to clearly articulate clarity on how they as politicians propose to constructively handle problems in the best interests of the country (another topic for another day...).
But isn’t this just what citizens should expect in politics? 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 attack ads is the serious discussion of serious issues requiring serious solutions.
But isn’t this just what citizens should expect in politics? 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 attack ads 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 observe politicians (and we do...), we are influenced not only by how politicians and 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 observe politicians (and we do...), we are influenced not only by how politicians and 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
T: 613.599.8177
E: rsirman@canmediate.com
W: www.canmediate.com
