Seven ways to have a real political conversation about bullying
Bullying is the topic up for debate in the House of Commons today. You may be saying: "At last!"
But no, it's not political culture that's getting a hard look by our federal politicians, even though this would be an ideal time to put some issues on the table. Although it's a very worthy and timely topic, I'd argue that MPs, political folks and yes, even journalists could make this conversation far more meaningful today if they talked about their own practices on this score; their failure to lead by example.
First, start with a definition of bullying, this one obtained from the U.S. stopbullying.gov website:
In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:
- An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.
- Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.
By that definition, it's not hard to see where we can make political comparisons. And with that in mind, here are seven ways in which we could have a serious conversation about how politics veers dangerously close to the type of bullying behaviour being condemned today by the MPs.
1. Question Period and members' statements. I don't really need to say anything more than that, do I? The insults, the shouting, the cheering-on of people who can yell the loudest and mock the most? As is repeatedly stated, if this happened in any other workplace, we'd call it bullying. But it's constantly air-brushed here as "vigorous debate." So vigorous that many of us can barely stand to watch it anymore.
2. Relatedly, the level of debate on Twitter, Facebook and in the comments sections of political blogs or online stories. Yes, I put this right after that last point in case anyone in the spectators' stands is feeling smug. Staring into the black screen of Tweetdeck, I too often see (from all political stripes), comments intended to scare or rattle people who are simply speaking their minds.
3. Rewarding bad behaviour. We keep being told (and we in the media perpetuate this image) that true leaders are strong, aggressive, ruthless and "in control." They gain friends by fear, not kindness. That is also the description of a bully. Think about it.
4. Mocking differences over which people have no control, such as physical appearance, accents, etc. For some reason it's seen as totally OK in politics to poke fun at NDP caucus members for their youth, women MPs for their voices, some male MPs (guess which) for their hair. And we who work in the world of politics want to lecture high-school kids on how to talk to each other?
5. Negative ads. Some say all's fair in love, war and politics, but I find it hard to look at some of those ads in recent years, especially the ones against Stephane Dion, and not think of sand being kicked into someone's face at the beach. (And in case anyone's tempted to see this as partisan sympathy, I was similarly unimpressed by the personal insults levelled against Stephen Harper when he was opposition leader. We want to call this 'attacking" in the political context, but if it was high school, it would be called "teasing.")
5 (a) Threatening people's jobs. Okay, okay -- at base, politics is about one group of politicians (the opposition) trying to take the jobs of other politicians (the ones in power.) But does that mean that every disagreement in Ottawa has to be distilled down to a job threat? I've seen a real increase in this rhetoric in the past 10 years or so in Ottawa: feuding Liberals threatening to deny jobs to rivals, Conservatives putting clouds over careers of people deemed to be Liberals or other rivals. When someone with power and influence is threatening someone with less power and influence, that could well be described as bullying.See the definition above.
5 (b) On that same score -- trying to get people in trouble with their bosses. This is another bullying tactic that has increased exponentially in Ottawa in recent years, and it is intended as intimidation, pure and simple. It works this way -- rather than deal with a critic (whether journalist, blogger, rival or simple commenter) head on, the complainer simply calls his or her boss. The idea is to show your potential critic/rival that you have more power than he/she does over his/her job. It's a repellent way of handling disagreement. It's also cowardly, but bullying is often cowardly, isn't it?
7. Temper tantrums. Maybe it's the high stakes of the political world (see previous point about jobs in the balance) but I've been constantly surprised through the years about stories of political staff here and the way they've endured hot-tempered outbursts and harangues from their MP bosses. Not just the low-level MPs, either. Former prime minister Paul Martin became famous for what people around him cheerfully called "beatings" and current Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been known to kick chairs. Bosses aren't supposed to scare the bejeezus out of their employees, period.
People in politics don't like to admit that bullying goes on here, or worse, that it's happened to them -- it's viewed as a sign of a weakness or "whining." But that's the whole thing about bullying, right? It persists exactly because of this mentality. And until the political people here starting owning up to the practice in this workplace, whether as perpetrators or victims, Ottawa is not really in a position to preach.
Thanks for this nice article about bullying. I especially like #3 where you rightfully point out that politicians who brag about being tough, strong, and forceful, to use some other words that we here in the US often hear, might just be behaving like a bully. There is much bullying in politics in the US, as there is in education and business, especially in health care. Keep up the good work. For more information about bullying in the workplace, especially healthcare check my blog at www.leonardnolt.blogspot.com under the heading "Workplace Psychological Abuse. Thank you. Leonard Nolt
Posted by: Leonard Nolt | October 16, 2012 at 05:15 AM
Canada is so in need of honest hard hitting journaiism. Thank God for that wonderful on line newspaper the Tyee.
Posted by: Sara-Anne Peterson | October 18, 2012 at 09:55 AM
Susan our paths have crossed before. Appreciate the parallels you draw. With all the talk of tough on crime but not on bullying, glad you did this one!
As a lever of power the pen is loosing it. Here is a lever of power that encourages collaboration in place of power politics. I would encourage your own review and reply
By way of introduction the first part of the article provides a reasoned backdrop for how undemocratic our democracy has become. In the final 3 paragraphs I define the democratic vote123 lever of power, show where this lever is used by many a political party leadership and concluding with a Plan A and Plan B as to how this democratic lever of power can be implemented with or without government support.
Genuine democracy stands for self-rule of, by and for the collective in contrast to being other ruled. Yet following Quebec's recent General Elections of September 4, 2012, not one of the 125 candidates declared elected received even one vote from among a solid majority, fully 56% of Quebec voters!
This toxic to democracy reality became more visible once Elections Quebec released the consolidated raw data for all 125 electoral districts. This collection of information was available to Elections Quebec during the election night vote tabulation, but was only released days after the front page election coverage had faded away. (1)
These problems are not unique to Quebec, but a mirror. Throughout all of Canada, whether federally or provincially, we all are restricted to a single-mark ballot.
Two "what ifs" to illustrate how a disproportionately tiny shift in voting outcomes could have swung the results from one extreme to another. Had the small number of an additional 1/10 of 1% of those who voted in Quebec's general election appeared at the polls in 9 districts, Pauline Marois and the PQ would have had an "absolute majority"! (2) In essence a phony majority built upon obtaining a literal majority of the seats with less than a majority of citizenry support.
Not only did the PQ come within a hair of achieving a phony majority government, adding a mere 1/2 of 1% of those who voted across 13 districts, the PLQ, including Jean Charest, forming the very bottom of the barrel of Liberals elected, would have had an absolute majority of the seats. (3) In short, a phony majority due to a very significant over-inclusion - where the share of those in parliament is larger than their share of the vote.
Weighing the data by the democratic "majority rule" rule - which by definition is more than half the people - only 3 of the elected had the support of a majority of all registered voters - the electorate. Watering the standard down to the pool who voted - the selectorate - even then, fully 98 of the 125 elected were declared elected in clear violation of the "majority rule" rule! District Jean-Lesage is among the most ignoble examples where 70% of those who voted did not vote for the candidate declared elected! In Ungava, bases the electorate, only 18.6% voted for the one declared elected! In contradiction to the Ungava benchmark, throughout Quebec, 102 other candidates achieved higher electorate pluralities yet were not elected.
Adding all 125 district election results, fully 56% of Quebec's selectorate, as pointed to earlier, did not vote for any one of the 125 MLAs now sitting in government! This 56% of the citizenry not only has an under-inclusion share of parliament, but an outright exclusion!
Breaking these figures down, but from the perspective of those declared elected, a scant 18.11% of the selectorate (13.07% electorate) voted for any one of the 54 PQ "elected". That is a 43.3% share of parliament's seats. Then, comparing seat share to vote share, this equates to a two-fold (and three-fold) over-inclusion!
As to the other three parties elected, over-inclusion values are similar and for the 50 PLQ, 17.53% of the selectorate (13.07% electorate) voted for them; for the 19 CAQ, 7.28% of the selectorate (5.43% electorate) and for the 2 QS, 0.67% of the selectorate (0.50% electorate).
Towards truly solving the vote-split vulnerability problem, the party partisans actions across Canada's political spectrum speak louder than words. Not one party leader elected to any government in Canada is elected within their party system basis a single pass of the single-mark ballot system, often misnamed for what it surely is not, a bona fide measure of First-Past-The-Post! All parties of some merit use a multiple voting process in electing their leaders. A preferential ballot ("vote123"), where voters may rank numerically each candidate is fully equivalent to the best multiple voting process.
To adopt a vote123 system in civic elections, how hard is it for voters to be allowed to mark their existing ballot 1,2,3...? Such a tiny change would simultaneously eliminate any and all of the above Casino type undemocratic election results where the majority who voted would prefer another over the currently declared elected!
With our governments across Canada controlled and run by party partisans elected through our current Casino like election outcomes, its understandable despite all their talk, why in their walk they are loath to extend genuine citizen run democracy back into the hands of the general citizenry. However, should the citizens as a run-up to the next federal or provincial election, even if in but one district voluntarily conduct a pre-election vote123 straw-vote poll, with such results those citizens could confidently and collectively be self-empowered on election day to avoid vote-splitting and elect not the lessor of two evils, but the one actually preferred by an honest majority! This in a heart-beat would also turn the party thick eared candidate's newly acquired enlightened self-interest towards doing the people's will and not first and foremost sticking to the party line as currently dictated by many a party leader.
References:
1. Elections Quebec, posted election night results, including the consolidated information when finally released, not on their home website, but at www.monvote.qc.ca/en/ Unfortunately some time after the election that site appears to be decommissioned.
2. Elections Quebec's www.monvote.qc.ca/en/ published numbers of the difference in votes between the top two candidates in each of the following 9 swing districts:
La Prairie, 81
Papineau, 167
Richmond, 169
Brome-Missisquoi, 303
Verdun, 547
Beauce-Sud, 650
Jean-Lesage, 651
Bellechasse, 698
Maskinongi, 769
Total 4135
Adding to these numbers the required tie-breaker vote to each of the 9 districts then totals 4144 votes!
3. Elections Quebec's www.monvote.qc.ca/en/ published numbers of the difference in votes between the top two candidates in each of the following 13 swing districts.
Saint-Francois, 110
Abitibi-Est, 777
Iles-de-la-Madeleine, 1060
Charlesbourg, 1125
Ungava, 1153
Vanier-Les Rivires, 1331
La Prairie*, 1782
Montmorency, 2122
Portneuf, 2203
Saint-Maurice*, 2237
Laval-des-Rapides, 2362
Sainte-Rose*, 2454
Sherbrooke, 2642
Total 21358
* The difference in votes between first and third place candidates where Liberal candidates placed third.
Adding the required one tie-breaker vote, this time to each of 13 districts, totals 21,371 votes!
Posted by: Eduard Hiebert | October 22, 2012 at 01:13 AM