The word civility has come to my attention a number of times in recent weeks, making me believe the time has come to deal with what I see as a vanishing concept. Before I comment on any idea, I usually reach for a dictionary to make sure I understand the true meaning of the word. In this case I went the limit and pulled out three modern dictionaries: British, American, and Canadian. Then, to see if the word had changed in meaning over the years, I looked in another published over a half-century ago.
Can you guess what I found? The practice of civility might have changed in recent years, but the meaning hasn’t varied. All dictionaries said essentially the same thing: civility refers to politeness or courteous behaviour. With that meaning in mind, I have seen two notable demonstrations of lack of civility in recent weeks.
We watched two men battle it out for the highest political position in The United States – some would say for the highest political office in the world. Throughout the campaign, they dropped most pretences at civility and called each other names and made accusations of all sorts of political heresy. If they didn’t make the worst accusations themselves, someone supporting them did. They left no dirt unslung, hurled uncomplimentary names, besmudged the other’s religious beliefs, and dragged the race through the mud. Through it all they managed to maintain a formal stance, as though formality could somehow replace civility.
It doesn’t have to be that way. When the smoke cleared, or should I say the mud evaporated, John McCain made a classic congratulatory speech, a model of civility, courtesy, and good manners. Then Barack Obama, who had attacked President George Bush equally with McCain, visited Bush in the Whitehouse and treated him with the respect and courtesy usually reserved for dearest friends.
If you think I have singled out our American neighbours, identifying them as lacking civility, I don’t intend it that way.
Just think back to our Canadian election. We too saw attack ads aimed less at policy and more at character. We too heard innuendo and witnessed lack of courtesy as our political leaders belittled each other. The loser in the U.S. election seemed to shed the dirt thrown his way and recover with grace. However, in the Canadian scene, the loser appeared genuinely hurt by the personal attacks and quickly resigned his position. When will our leaders learn to attack the views and opinions of their political foes, and stay clear of attacking their persons?
We did note the overnight change in the demeanour of our Prime Minister. The moment he won a minority government, his attack-dog stance vanished and an attitude of cooperation appeared. He will need that approach as he leads a minority government. Could it happen that a demeanour of courtesy and respect will settle over the next parliament? I believe Steven Harper has the skill to make it work. He must turn from the historic adversarial approach and convince others to do the same.
This healthier approach works for some of our politicians. Wellington-Halton Hills MPP Ted Arnott recently urged his colleagues to support Bill 111. This bill, “An Act to Proclaim Emancipation Day,” would recognize the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. What a great idea. But something else about it also excites me. Ted Arnott and Marie Van Bommel, MPP for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, cosponsored the bill – the first time in the history of the Ontario Legislature that members of different parties have cosponsored a bill.
It just proves that politicians can practice civility and work together.