Harnessing Disagreements for a Stronger Municipal Council

In provincial and federal politics here in Canada, it is almost universally accepted among voters and pundits that disagreements within parties are a sign of bad politics. Moments when members of the governing party publicly rail against a decision by their Prime Minister are interpreted by voters as ineffective leadership, and we often see poll numbers dip in response to what voters view as parliamentary dysfunction. In our Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, intra-party differences of opinion are viewed as a muddled message, an unclear direction, or simply a failure of the government. From my years of working with municipal elected officials, staff, and voters, I believe that this pervasive view has trickled down to the municipal sector, and the importance of civil disagreement on Council is often misunderstood and unfairly maligned.

Political parties have the luxury of private caucus meetings in which to voice their disagreements, and so they might be fairly criticized when those discussions blow up into the public view. Municipal elected officials, however, are required to do practically all their business in the harsh light of day, and any differences in points of view must come out eventually. Expecting that Council will all agree on an issue and come to the right decision without dissent is a nuance-free view of how municipal elected officials operate and the value they find in examining critical or disparate points of view.

Because of the way voters have traditionally interpreted disagreement in deliberative bodies, there can sometimes be pressure on Councillors not to be perceived as the squeaky wheel, or to keep silent on their concerns for the sake of reaching a unanimous decision and supporting your Council. This is understandable; Councillors want to strike the right balance between due diligence and progress, and naturally, once a decision has been reached, all members of Council are expected to support it. Understandable though it may be, stifling or hiding disagreements during debate has a net-negative impact on the decision-making process of Council, and sharing a variety of opinions around the public meeting table, although nerve-wracking, can make for better problem solving, stronger representation of the community, reduce groupthink, and perhaps paradoxically, improve voter confidence in Council’s decision-making.

When Councils debate and highlight different points of view, they actually pull people into the process by reflecting their own concerns and opinions back to them, making them feel heard. Councils that vote unanimously with little debate haven’t always “shown their work” in the same sense. When debate occurs, voters can have confidence that Council has sufficiently considered the evidence, which can go a long way especially today, with mistrust of elected officials, fairly or unfairly, defining the current political landscape.

Groupthink is a chronic issue in any governing body, and municipal councils are no exception. Groupthink, or the tendency to coalesce around a solution favoured by the group regardless  of merit, can be an insidious problem, because we don’t always know what we don’t know. It can be hard to find pitfalls or errors when everyone is looking in the same direction. Ensuring a diversity of opinions on Council, including those that disagree with the core views of the group, will allow Council to get a sense of what else might be out there, beyond the confines of their table. And of course, more varied perspectives simply lead to better and more inclusive policy outcomes, a result supported by reams of research over the course of decades.

As long as the disagreements aren’t made in bad faith, they can contain significant power for problem solving. When disagreements are weaponized, we see a different kind of dysfunction arise, one in which progress is halted until the disagreement is solved. This is exactly the wrong way to harness differences, although solutions for such uncivility are a broader topic for another day.

Diversity of opinions is not just about demographics or ideology; it’s about ensuring all relevant perspectives are represented in debate so Councils can have the clearest information to make the most informed decision possible. Although it can be tempting to show a united front and vote together in a show of support, always remember the value of disagreement and the sharing of diverse perspectives. One of the great strengths of local government is the ability of any Councillor to speak their minds, independent of any party apparatus or leader dictating positions; let’s use that strength to the utmost and bring as many voices to bear on each problem as possible.

What do you think about municipal disagreement? How have you harnessed different opinions on your Council to drive a more inclusive policy decision? Email us your thoughts at tyler@strategicsteps.ca.