Bridging the Divide

In a survey completed last year as part of the Common Ground Initiative, by lead researcher Dr. Feodor Snagovsky, 15.8% of Albertans that participated in this random survey agreed with the statement that said, “violence is sometimes an acceptable way to express disagreement with the government.” Another 15.2% were neutral and 3.8% didn’t know. The other 65.1% either disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.

That’s shocking.

In the same survey, 38.9% of respondents agreed with the statement that said, “Sometimes, the people need to use force to take back their democracies.” So instead of using their vote, volunteering, or even running for office themselves, almost 40% of respondents said they agree that sometimes using force is needed.

That’s also a shocking statistic.

Unfortunately, I wasn't shocked when I heard the news of the attempted assassination of the former President. I wish I was shocked but over the years, I feel like I am becoming more desensitized to the anger and violence in politics. What’s also hard is that I realize I am typically far more isolated from the rising anger than elected representatives who are women and/or people of colour. The treatment of my colleagues in their first years is far more toxic and angry than most of what I have received in my almost 11 years serving Edmontonians.

This is important to stress because there is a real and noticeable difference in the treatment of women and people of colour in politics. The vitriol and hatred that I have seen directed towards others is wrong and can actually discourage people from putting their name forward in the first place.

When I first ran in 2007, one of the reasons I chose to run municipally was because I was growing tired of what seemed like an unwillingness of provincial and federal governments to genuinely consider different perspectives. I never expect an elected representative to agree with me all the time, but I do expect that they will take the time to consider the wide variety of all perspectives and use that to help inform their decisions. 

Little did I realize that I would long for the days of 2007 because 17 years later, it’s only gotten worse.

Provincial and federal governments more regularly limit the amount of time spent on debate and rarely actually consider adjustments or alternatives raised by the other parties. This is happening from governments on all sides of the spectrum. I believe this is playing an active role in the division we are seeing.

There’s no easy fix. In fact, it’s much easier to keep moving in the direction of greater division. On social media, we are rewarded by creating more engagement and one of the best ways to create engagement is by leading with anger. The best way to try and get back to a place that the vast majority of people want is going to take time, hard work, a lot of empathy, some self-reflection, and a clear understanding that bringing divides does not mean trying to appease everyone. What does that look like in action? It is going to vary.

For elected representatives, it means thinking carefully about the words we use. I’ve spent some time thinking about some of the language I’ve used. A good example of where I could do better was when I called Bill 20 an ‘assault’ on local democracy. To be clear, Bill 20 is some of the worst legislation ever introduced in this province but ‘assault’ was the wrong word and so early on I shifted my language to state that Bill 20 undermines our local democracy.

I think it’s important for all elected representatives, especially those in the partisan system, to take time to reflect on how we can all work to raise the bar. As an example, we shouldn’t be talking about putting those we disagree with, ‘in the crosshairs’ of others. Yes, that was a figure of speech used in the past, but with growing division, we need to be more thoughtful about what we say and how we say it.

For everyone else, it means being willing to hear different perspectives. That doesn’t mean you are required to agree or even continue engaging with someone you disagree with. But as long as a person is acting in good faith, which I appreciate is subjective, we have the potential to encourage more respectful dialogue.

Part of why I love door-knocking as much as I do is it helps to create more positive relationships. Even this week, I went to the home of a person who was very angry with me three years ago and would not speak with me. This week, the same person answered the door and instead of shutting the door on me, we talked for about 20 minutes on a variety of topics. It’s unlikely that this person will ever vote for me but that’s not the point. We went from the person not even wanting to engage in conversation, to a thoughtful discussion where we had certain things in common and other areas where we disagreed.

Again, this is easier for me because when I’m in a community meeting or at someone’s door, I’m often treated differently from women and people of colour. Therefore, we also need to be willing to call out bad behaviour in order to create an environment where everyone feels comfortable to speak up. I’ve been to my fair share of meetings where one or two people try to dominate and it can discourage others from engaging. And it’s not uncommon for those who are from marginalized communities to be the ones who stay silent. 

I think one other important reminder is that just because you didn’t get your way in a decision or someone didn’t agree with your point of view doesn’t mean that you weren’t heard. It can sometimes just mean that someone feels differently and we need to try and be ok with that. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t criticize a decision made by an elected representative. In fact, I continue to encourage you to speak up about policy decisions.

I’ll give an example of how to do this using Bill 20 which I referenced above. In my opinion and the opinion of most Albertans, Bill 20 is a terrible piece of legislation. Many Albertans and organizations (ex: Alberta Municipalities and Rural Municipalities of Alberta) were very vocal about their opposition to this legislation. I know the government heard our feedback. They chose to advance that legislation even with that opposition. Calling the provincial government names won’t help. In fact, I think it would make it worse.

So I won’t call them names, what I will do is continue to raise this as the years go by. I don’t think anyone should forget about this legislation and how it was brought forward. I think people need to be reminded that the government limited debate and even when reasonable amendments were brought forward, they were not accepted and there was no real explanation as to why they were not accepted. I’ll continue to speak up and work to see that legislation repealed and I’ll do it by being vocal AND respectful. Standing up for what you believe should not stop.

Those percentages in the images above won’t change overnight. But if we are all willing to give it our best, I know it will get better. I’ll close by encouraging you to take some to visit the Common Ground website to learn more about this initiative. There’s a lot of great information and it has helped me learn how much more most of us have in common than not. Plus there are opportunities for people to come together and learn from each other, that’s more important than ever.