Young citizens a different political beast:

By TERRY WEBER

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 Posted at 9:17 AM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Young adults don't vote as often as their older counterparts, but they're just as likely to make their political voices heard in other ways, Statistics Canada said Tuesday.

According to the government agency, about 59 per cent of Canadians in their 20s said they had voted in at least one election immediately before the survey, which was conducted in 2003.

By contrast, about 71 per cent of people aged 30 to 44 reported voting, while 85 per cent of those over the age of 45 said they had cast a ballot.

Overall, about 77 per cent of eligible Canadians reported voting in at least one election.

People in all groups also said they were less likely to vote in municipal elections than in federal or provincial ballots.

“Some researchers have referred to young people as engaged skeptics — interested in political issues, but wary of politicians,” Statscan noted.

“In other words, they are committed to the tenets of democracy, but tend to be more interested in participative political behaviour and issues which are immediately pertinent to their lives.”

As a result, Tuesday's study suggested that young people's “feeling of disconnect from conventional political parties may partially account for their negative view of traditional politics and for their interest in alternative forms of political behaviour.”

The agency's findings stand in contrast to a new survey published in Tuesday's Globe and Mail which suggests about 88 per cent of Canadians aged 18 to 24 intend to vote in the Jan. 23 election and that about 70 per cent identify with a political party.

However, Statscan's report also suggested that the gaps in voting patterns between age groups found in the 2003 survey don't necessarily translate into a less of an interest in political matters.

In fact, the findings suggested that about 58 per cent of people aged 22 to 29 had engaged in at least one non-voting political activity. That's roughly the same as for people aged 30 to 64, Statscan said.

Nearly a third of young adults said they had signed a petition, while about a quarter said they had either chosen or boycotted a product for ethical reasons. One-sixth said they had attended a public meeting and about 3 per cent had worked as a volunteer for a political party.

The likelihood of participation in a non-voting political activity rose alongside education, the survey said. Those with higher levels of education were also more likely to vote.

By region, Quebec boasted the highest proportion of young people who voted, with nearly three-quarters reporting having cast a ballot in the last election prior to the survey. By comparison, 56 per cent of young people on the Prairies and 53 per cent in Ontario reported voting.

The findings also suggested that Canadian-born young adults were more politically engaged than newcomers to Canada. Statscan said two-thirds of Canadian-born people aged 22 to 29 reported voting in an election, compared with less than a third of immigrant youth.

GLOBAL DEMOCRACY:Civil Society Visions and Strategies

The Montreal International Forum (FIM) is an international NGO think tank whose goal is to increase the voice and participation of civil society actors in all multilateral institutions

In light of the shifting trends in global governance, what are civil society's proposals to build a more democratically governed world? What visions and strategies can civil society, diverse in its interests but potentially united in its actions, propose as means of attaining global democracy?

The Montreal International Forum (FIM) organized an international conference to discuss about these issues.

Global Democracy 2005 (G05) entitled: “Global Democracy: Civil Society Visions and Strategies” took place from May 29th to June 1st, 2005 in Montréal, Canada. This conference, open to all, gathered especially representatives and actors from: Civil Society Organizations (CSOs); Multilateral Institutions; Governments; Parliaments; Businesses and Associations; The Labour Sector; Indigenous Communities; The Academic World; The Media.

G05 was an opportunity for people of all backgrounds and varying interests to come together and to set forward a global agenda of reforms and democratic change!

Read more about the conference and the outputs at: http://g05.netedit.info/en/index.aspx

Ralph Nader : A Call for Civic Engagement

In a conference in Montreal on 18 August 2005, the American activist Ralph Nader stressed the necessity of civic engagement and emphasized the role of active minorities in bringing about major social changes such as the abolition of slavery, the extension of political rights to women and the emergence of trade union movement.

The conference was organized jointly by the citizen action group L’Institut du Nouveau Monde (New World Institute), the Center for International Studies of the Université de Montréal CÉRIUM and the Institut d’études internationales de Montréal (Montreal International Studies Institute). More than 600 people attended.

Check out the link to this conference and listen to Ralph Nader's presenttion online at: http://www.cerium.ca/article1210.html

Solutions to increasing CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Location: Santropol Roulant 6:30-8:30

Attendees: Lucia (Coordinator for Urban Ecology Centre), Anuj, Jane, Fode, Zachary, Fiona, Martin, Emma, Tamara

1. Introductions
2. Lucia on barriers to civic engagement
3. Discussion

2. Lucia began by giving us a brief history of civic engagement divided into two categories: social and political movements since the 1950s. She prefaced her talk by pointing out that she was brought up in a different world: they produced little garbage, didn’t use cars to the extent that we do now, “consumerism” didn’t exist! Why are students scared now of not having a job? Why are we so scared of scarcity when there is plenty of everything to go around? Why are we ‘built’ to think that we have no responsibility / time? She attributed this lack in civic engagement to three main factors: 1) “it doesn’t do any good anyway” - Lucia demonstrated that this theory does not hold since Canadians managed to keep Canada out of Iraq, sign the Kyoto Protocol and privatizing water in Montreal caused a “flood” of anger. 2) “politicians are crooked” – she gave several examples of how the Liberal party of QC has dealt with social issues such as the American missile defense shield. 3) “people are shy and ignorant” – Lucia brought copies of the Montreal Charter which cites that Montrealers have rights and highlighted the city’s sustainable development plan.

3. A very interesting discussion followed in which we identified several barriers to civic engagement:

• youth often feel the need to get themselves settled first before tackling bigger issues
• lack of follow up
• labeling makes us feel pigeon-holed (an “activist”, a social “reformer”)
• people don’t recognize the value of their efforts.

Don’t ask yourself if your efforts make a difference…respond to how you feel!

Traditional Avenues of Engagement

Canada25 – Montréal
Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Facilitor: Jon McPhedran Waitzer

Participants: Julie Lewis, Grant Holly, Jane Newton, Ian Cumming, Max Reed

Summary: Discussion began with an examination of the environmental conditions that affect engagement, using Montreal as a case study. In outlining avenues of engagement, discussion turned back to a definition of civic engagement itself.

Preconditions to Engagement: Montreal’s assets and handicaps
+ large proportion of students and young people within the city population
– many ‘distractions’ from civic pursuits (party city)

+ within certain domains (i.e. – social/economic policy), wider consensus than in most cities (towards the Left), leading to a culture of engagement
– high expectations of state sector can lead to lower initiative within civil society
– lack of DIY, ‘small town’ mentality (ie – helping old ladies cross the street)

+ cultural diversity, esp. within (vs between) neighbourhoods > high degree of interaction
– large number of transitory citizens, communities weakened by movement

– historical tensions (religion and modernity) and rivalries (English and French) lead to hard-done-by mentalities and ideological polarization
+ conflict as a mobilizing force, creating solidarity within communities (identity politics)

Avenues of Engagement
Three main spheres of Engagement, each embracing many avenues:
-Political
-Protesting (Iraq war, cuts to bursaries)
-Media (websites, zines, alt. media, art)
-Voting
-Party Involvement
-Discussion (citizen-citizen engagement)
-Petitions
-Educational Institutions (MTL student movement very politicized)
-Social (incl. Religious and Cultural)
-Tam Tams
-Out-Games
-Festivals (music, art, comedy)
-Sport
-Volunteerism
-Environmental (conceptually different, more holding back from destruction than contributing to construction)
-four Rs
Definition of Civic Engagement
-Much discussion of different structural ways to relate the interconnected concepts above in one definition, and also on the question of scale (Global? Municipal?)
-Finally, agreement on civic engagement as activities within three main spheres and many separate avenues, all undertaken with the goal(s) of increasing material welfare and /or changing/reinforcing values systems within what one perceives as one’s community
-scale unimportant, more significant are the activities themselves

** Significant discussion time was also devoted to a proposal by one participant to narrow the roundtable’s focus to the sphere of political engagement, and to use Montreal as a case study in this regard. In the end, it was decided that the idea of Montreal as a case study is sound, but that limiting ourselves to the consideration of one sphere of engagement would be out of step with the goals of Canada25’s policy project **

Barriers to Civic Engagement

Barriers to Civic Engagement
Canada25 Discussion Minutes – Featuring Santropol Roulant
(“Cultivating Civic Engagement”)

Thursday October 6 2005
Hall Building, Concordia
7:10-9:00
Anuj, Marion, Julie, Jonathan, Phoebe, Fodé, Mark, Tessa, Jane and two guests from Santropol Roulant; Emma and Fiona

The meeting was divided into 7 parts:

1 – Fodé’s experiences volunteering in South Africa, Senegal and Ecuador.
2 – Brainstorm and comments on what he related
3 – Emma and Fiona on Santropol Roulant
4 – Summary and link to barriers
5 – Barriers to civic engagement
6 – A case study: lack of low-cost housing in Montreal
7 – “House”cleaning issues

1. Fodé shared his experiences volunteering overseas namely with AIESEC in Ecuador in 1997 where, based on the breakdown of the “developed” / “developing” world concept, he cultivated an interest in Ecuadorians to come to Canada. As a result, 6 Ecuadorians came to Canada and offered their insight on various issues. The irony was that they had never imagined having anything to offer Canada!
He also volunteered with Pioneers of Change in Senegal where, realizing that an upcoming Peace Conference could be more efficiently organized, he pitched in to help design the conference. Thinking he was going to participate as a guest, he ended up suggesting powerful ideas that undoubtedly made the conference run much more smoothly. For example, he suggested that the chairs be placed in circles so as to encourage dialogue rather than in rows restricting the flow of conversation. He pointed out that the irony here is that that’s how Africans did it before Europeans came!
In South Africa he volunteered with a youth organization near Johannesburg. He had us do an “icebreaker” game in which we had to sit on each others’ laps in a circle and, in that position, walk together. While we weren’t too bad, he said that for the youth in Jo-burg, it was almost instinctual to move in unison so close together. They mastered the game since culturally being close to one another is not as much of a barrier to overcome as it is “here”. The same concept could be applied to a game that he played with youth whereby someone had to be “eliminated”, as in step aside until the game was finished because they “lost” or were “put out”. This concept of being “out” was foreign to them.
So…at the risk of reducing his contributions, I think it’s fair to say that these were insightful reflections on how we interact – instead of just going away to “help”, we discover that the relationships we develop are reciprocal and that we learn as much as the people we’re supposed to be helping.
This led us to the bigger question of why most of us are so eager to go abroad to volunteer but we are not interested in our local communities to the same degree; or why our contributions seem less visible here than in a developing country. Alors, the bigger question of civic engagement!

2. The brainstorm after brought up questions and ideas revolving around our motivations for engaging civically, locally (or not), and globally. The gist was that as long as you foster exchanges, it doesn’t matter where they are; on your street corner in Montreal or on your street corner in Casamance, Senegal. On to a local example…

3. This segued perfectly into the presentation on why / how Santropol Roulant has such a successful team of staff and volunteers. They said that they reframed the question “How can we get more volunteers?” to “How do we create a space to engage volunteers?”. Their space is conducive to relationships instead of free labour! Everyone there is flexible and open to change and suggestions. I think Emma’s quotation pretty much sums up the atmosphere at SR: “It’s really happening!” Environmentally-friendly, connected to the community and sustainable in every sense of the word, SR is a perfect example of how Montrealers can make a difference in their immediate worlds. Food for thought, eh?!

4. “It’s not only about where you want to be, but who you want to become in the process” said Fiona; this linked our discussion to the barriers that restrict youth from engaging. By asking the question about who we would like to be, we are forced to reframe traditional questions that restrict the potential for positive social change.

5. Barriers: We brainstormed general ideas that we felt make youth reluctant to engage:
· focus on “outcomes” – quantifiable evidence of results
· focus on problems rather than solutions
· language (French / English)
· lack of confidence / underestimating our efforts
· perception that “bigger is better”
· perception that policy is a reliable, traditional avenue but not looking into everything else to which it’s connected
· lack of emotional attachment to issues

6. Case Study – we pinpointed “lack of affordable housing” as a current issue in Montreal that needs consideration. Suggestions were brought up about how to deal with this. A few of the ones that “hit home” were:
· social groups bring the issue to the fore
· cooperatives
· renovating old buildings
· rent freezes
· boycotting condos that occupy possible space for low-cost housing
· addressing the root cause – access to education, employment…
· high-density living
· green housing (more sustainable)
· facilitate getting people out of low-cost housing

INTRODUCTION TO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Canada25 – Montréal Introduction to Civic Engagement

Facilitor: Michael McLlelan Price

Participants: Hannah Yao, Michael Padlia, Semi Kandil, Jullie Lewis, Armen Forget, Grant Holly, Jane Newton, Ian Cumming, Fodé Beaudet, Phoebe Baumgarten, Anuj Khosla.

Why are you engaged? Why are you here?
– Feel that people are not being engaged
o Concerned about Apathy
-Read the cities report and felt it was relevant – scared of being complacent
-Curiosity – see what it is about - heard about it from friends
-Interested in talking about municipal politics and public policy
oLike attending city council meetings
-Feel that this is an organized, creative approach to decision making.
-PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT (sharing in a diverse environment)
-Travels a lot and wants to have stronger knowledge on debates about Canada and why it works - wants to be enlightened EDUCATION - TO LEARN
-Has been abroad in networks at issues linked to social change and interested in what can others or that I can do – PERSONAL CHALLENGING. What Can I do, and to LEARN about a different networking process – AFFECT CHANGE
-Non political forum – MAKE A DIFFERENCE – EFFICIENTLY
-Very deep concern about the world and wants to make a difference

What is Civic Engagement? Forms of civic engagement…- Philanthropy – corporations working with disadvantaged children
- Volunteering – community organisations
- Questioning, communicating, dialoguing
- Getting involved (NGO’s) – Civil Society
- Protesting
- Community meetings – getting people together
- Voting and being and informed citizen
oParticipating in government consultative process
- Participating in study circles
– information sessions that government or community organizations will hold
- Teaching
- Challenging –* Lobbying- Vocalizing
- Recycling – caring for the environment

Why does it matter?- Bettering the community – quality of life
- Building a sense of community – bonds
- Setting good examples and values in society
- Reduce segregation – building connections with diverse views
- Save lives
- Save people from violation
- Not being complacent – don’t take things for granted—dialoguing

Definition of Civic Engagement…- How can we define civic engagement?
In the dictionary, CIVIC and ENGAGEMENT mean nothing alone.
- Is Civic Engagement always good… it can also be bad, but emphasis should be on what ones intentions to be engaged are, and perhaps not on the final outcome of the action
- Challenge to all members to continue thinking about how to define this in future meetings

Bonjour/Hello

This blog is an open space for individuals to contribute their ideas, feedback and resourcs to our discussions. Canada 25 Montréal is part of a national organization dedicated to brining young Canadians together to discuss national issues in a non-partisan environment. Feel free to contribute to our discussions in our blog (vous pourriez les faire en francais ou anglais). If you are in montreal and wish to attend one of our meetings, email us at montreal@canada25.com or visit the website at www.canada25.org.