A new study drawing on interviews with 65 former Members of the Canadian Parliament cuts against some commonly held stereotypes about politicians.
Did you assume most are super well-connected “political animals” who begin strategizing their paths to power at an early age?
You would be wrong, given the findings released earlier this week by the Samara foundation. In fact, most Members who sat in Parliament between 2004 and 2008 before leaving public life described their route into politics as a detour from other callings, a path largely shaped by luck and happenstance.
Which is why, the Samara Foundation, which conducted the study, titled its report The Accidental Citizen?
Here is their summary of findings:
First, Parliamentarians’ backgrounds, experiences, pre-political careers and expressed motivations for running were far more varied and much less predictable than we’d assumed.
Most spent a generation pursuing other careers and interests before becoming an MP. Few self-identified as political candidates. Most say they sought a nomination only after they were asked, and some accepted it with only weeks or mere days before the nomination vote took place.
Further, these MPs did not consider themselves to be political insiders, even though they were generally highly involved in their communities. Rather, most portrayed themselves as outsiders, and indicated they came to the job with that mindset.
Finally, even the nomination process for a candidate's political party seemed subject to chance. The nomination is an essential element of anyone’s path to politics.
It was thus surprising that, for so many MPs, their gateway into politics was so unpredictable. Few MPs described the nomination process consistently; the confusing rules and their varied application made it difficult to understand the terms on which the nomination contests were fought.
Perhaps as a result, most MPs were critical of some aspect of the nomination process, even though they had navigated it successfully. One can only imagine what interviews with less successful candidates might reveal.
The interviewing initiative by Michael MacMillan and Alison Loat, who created the charitable organization Samara to study citizen engagement with Canadian democracy, will be yielding further reports.
The views we tend to get of politicians are through the harsh and often cartoonish lens of the news media (The Tyee is a culprit on some days too!).
Samara’s research allows public servants to relate the complexities of their working lives and how the current system supports or thwarts their best efforts to make a positive difference. The Tyee will be tracking this project closely.
Find the The Accidental Citizen? here and go here to watch an interesting video of MacMillan and Loat discussing their research.
David Beers is editor of The Tyee.
7
Login or register to post comments
G West
1 year ago
Umm
Don't think so - for every 'accidental' citizen there are at least two or three very 'on-purpose' citizens like John Baird, James Moore, Stephen Harper and Gordon Campbell...and, even worse, the political puppet masters behind the scenes like Martyn Brown who take 'ordinary' people and turn them into manipulative monsters.
offended
1 year ago
Perks are Us
I asked a friend who had just gotten elected as an MP (this was some time ago) what his first impression was when he got to Ottawa.
First thing he said was how much he was unimpressed by the orientation for new MP's, where they spent a great deal of time going through their book (a big huge binder) of "perks".
He then described those perks. Flabbergasting.
That's a story I'd like to see. What's really in the "perks" book.
alive
1 year ago
Dilemma
Unfortunately many candidates are selected because of their supposedly outgoing nature and many "contacts".
That describes a lot of the typical chamber of commerce types, the legendary "good ole boys".
It becomes all about finding someone who can garner the most votes and the idea is that if a person frequently gets a picture in the paper, then he/she must be "well-known".
We could do better without those "manager-types" and instead elect a person who actually has produced something with his hands.
crankypants
1 year ago
This sounds
This whole excercise sounds like something that either a political party or a group of former federal politicians would front to deflect the many criticisms aimed at our representatives.
If our MPs or MLAs or even municipal representatives accepted their roles only to serve and better whatever jurisdiction they represent, then they would not use every means possible to line their pockets. It's very possible that they did not envision themselves entering the political arena in their formative years, but once they were convinced, coerced or whatever found it very easy to adapt to the benefits of being treated like a rock star.
freebear
1 year ago
Snake Oil University!
Politicians are opportunists who will 'wear' whatever 'suit' will get the them elected; and then a cozy directorship a la Carole Taylor!
Few, if any, do it for the common good!
myworld2
1 year ago
good intentions
Candidate searches should begin quite early, so it must be unusual that a last minute decision is made, without contemplation, to run. Once the decision is made to run the party executives can easily effect the voting of the party members to elect the person they prefer. The nominaton rules seem to be unclear enough to allow for some manipulation.
I am sure that most get involved with good intentions - it would be hard to recruit candidates with promises of corruption - but the culture would take over the person's value system. Almost anything can be justified within a culture. Generally, the party leadership can be held accountable for the conduct of caucus members.
I would not think of past politicians as the most objective survey subjects.
AlisonLoat
1 year ago
The Accidental Citizen?
I suppose the above comments are largely confirmations of a fear I have, which is that we're living in a time of great cynicism toward politics and government. It worries worries me immensely, because despite of their many limitations, politics are fundamental to how we live together and public policy still remains, in my view, the best singular ways to tackle public problems that we have.
It is that belief that led to the creation of Samara, the organization that conducted this work. We are a charitable organization whose goal is to strengthen the Canadian democracy and the attention paid to it. We are non-partisan and unaffiliated with any political party.
"Crankypants," if you'd like more information on our goals, please visit www.samaracanada.com.
Our goal with this project is to encourage a greater understanding of Canada's public life, draw attention to things that are working well and contribute to a constructive discussion on what can be improved. So thank you all for helping that along with your comments.
If you're interested in the good and bad news that came from this first report, which deals with MPs' motivations and paths to politics, you can read/listen here: http://bit.ly/92vFdq. Our next publication will deal with the actual job of the MP, and will be available in the fall.
"Myworld2," I saw your comment on methodology and strengths/weaknesses of qualitative methods. More information is here (http://bit.ly/bSFLPd) or you can read the discussion on Andrew Potter's blog post, which gets into it in more detail: http://bit.ly/b6i10Y
Thank you for your comments. If you have any other feedback you'd like to share after the comments here are closed, please feel to visit here: http://bit.ly/92vFdq