It shouldn’t be any surprise that the new order at City Hall has crystallized municipal political parties in all but name. While a party structure makes it easier to marshal votes, there are downsides. For the public, one concern is less consultation. Another is insensitivity to dissenting views. Both of these could lead to a further hardening along party lines. Unless carefully watched our City government could drift away from its reputation for being close to its electorate.

 

Often the comic side of City party politics obscures this new order. We all chuckled over the squabbling around the first seating plan for Council’s picture. There was mirth and merriment when unpopular committees were used as re-education camp for those slow to appreciate the wisdom of the administration.

 

But the entertainment value often underlines that our chief magistrate has little need to get consensus from staff, unaffiliated members of Council or the public. 

 

Instead of the hard and unpredictable effort to develop majority positions, issue by issue, the Mayor can rely on his municipal party. Supported by new rules for dispensing positions, and with tenure at pleasure, the Mayor’s office was quick to see the possibilities. By the end of Council’s second meeting it was clear that the new civic virtue is loyalty. Rather than building approval through consensus, political parties offer instant majorities.

 

To be fair, the previous Council and public wanted a stronger mayor and the opportunity for streamlined decision making. Yet a combination of new procedures, a fractured opposition and partisan spirit has moved our City’s politics into areas where wider public policy can be the loser.

 

Under new directions, staff do not to report out unless absolutely necessary. The Executive Committee places items before Council only if required.  Committee agendas are thin. Input from the general public beyond statutory requirements is rarely sought. As examples, earlier thoughts for public consultation for City priorities and the budget have been set aside.

 

The deeper concern is the potential for an insensitive but powerful administration. By not needing to reach out issue by issue, any administration risks only looking after its loyalists. It’s basic political arithmetic not to annoy supporters. Take away the hard slog necessary to achieve consensus and there is little incentive to cultivate those with differing viewpoints.

 

This term I have spoken with about a quarter of the members of Council.  Those on the inside are doing their best to govern. So far they are full of enthusiasm, eager to change the world. Those on the outside have no influence and, short of surrendering their principles, are unlikely to have any. They speak of being completely frozen out of any decisionmaking.  The ‘mushy middle’ that influenced so many decisions in earlier terms is gone.

 

Unsurprisingly, those on the outside have banded together. Bereft of perks, the ability to discipline and unity of purpose they have not been able to present a cogent alternative program. Their victories, like stopping increases to the ‘fair wage’ policy, are those of guerilla politics.

 

So what are the prospects for the rest of the term? I expect that the administration will continue to rely on the instant majorities supplied by its supporters. Without the necessity to reach out to the public or uncommitted members of Council, there is the danger that policies may become insular and unrepresentative of the wider city.