Voter turnout has been steadily dwindling over the years. How, exactly, do we expect our democracy to function?

A4

Alec Bruce

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

Watching Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion breeze through New Brunswick last weekend, promising everything from permanent government employment to a clean, well-lighted environment, a young friend of mine sniffed: "I'm not voting for anyone. Do they think we're all fools?"

Enlarge Photo

Perhaps the better question is: Should we become the fools they think we are?

For more than two generations (that's 50 years as the crow feet line the faces of John and Jane Q. Public), turnout in every general election has steadily dwindled. In 1958, for example, 80 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots. By 1980, the proportion had fallen to 70 per cent; by 2004, it had sunk to an all-time low of 60 per cent. And this year, less than a week from today, the odds favour a dip to less than 55 per cent.

What's next in the years ahead? An oligarchy? A dictatorship? Or maybe just a slow, winding-down of the institutions we once trusted to keep our nation free, tolerant and. . .oh yes, democratic.

We love that word, "democracy". We exalt its meaning, if rarely its application. We cherish its foundation, if never its heroes "" John Adams, Joseph Howe, Tom Paine; and others still living, and fighting, who speak truth to power around the world, and find themselves becoming, in the process, social nuisances, dispensable gadflies, or corpses at the hands of gun-toting thugs. Still, we precious babes in the rich, fat West pout whenever our feeble administrations fail to properly appreciate us or to fully represent our interests.

Well, I've got news for us, the poor, misbegotten people: We get the government we elect; and, if we don't vote, we get what we deserve.

In fact, we're experiencing the results of our decades'-long ambivalence to our political process right now. In September, Harpertown began its campaign to win the hearts and minds of the meek and weak-minded. First, it said, "the system is broken", despite the fact that opposition parties had passed 95 per cent of Conservative legislation tabled over the previous 31 months. Then, it said, holding a general election was justified, despite the fact that the decision broke its own bill "" passed only months earlier into law "" to schedule such events at four-year intervals.

Apart from spirited complaints from some quarters, these and other Tory absurdities "" deep cuts to arts funding, a hammerlock on information, a pathological mistrust of the parliamentary committee process, among many others "" have generated widespread ennui among most electors. And the plaintive whine from a growing minority seems to be: "Governments are all alike; it's politics as usual; it will never change; voting won't make a difference."

Tell that to the people of Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe, or Iraq. Check out what Russia's been doing lately in the name of "democracy".

In these, and many other nations, the concept of citizen engagement in the mechanisms of government really is on life support. We're not there. But we could be if we abandon all hope and faith in the power of participation at the ballot box.

That our system is irrefutably flawed "" that it's rife with petty corruption and assorted crimes and misdemeanors "" is the best argument for, not against, voting in this election. Few of us who struggle to put food on the table, pay the rent or mortgage, and provide for our loved ones, have many opportunities to affect the way we are governed. But all of us, over the age of 18, can make this one, small difference: X marks the spot.

Is that naïve? Only if you believe that inaction will produce a better, more accountable, more just society.

And, frankly, how foolish is that?

Alec Bruce is a Moncton-based writer. He may be reached via www.thebrucereport.com.