The question has been the subject of heated discussions around me for years: is it possible to “change things from within”? Is it worth investing in the political structures of another era, which do not resemble us very much, to try to bring about a profound change?
The problem has been scrutinized from all angles by many in this new, more diverse, female-dominated generation that has taken Quebec city halls by storm this week. But it also concerns young people from all walks of life who seek above all to change society on the causes that are close to their hearts, and for whom active politics is only one of the many ways to get there – and not always the best.
Basically, the dilemma remains the same: is it better to have the freedom to say exactly what you think but further away from power, than to join the big traditional institutions, to try to influence their trajectories somewhat? great blows of internal diplomacy, compromise, and carefully chosen battles?
The answer will disappoint many: it depends.
It depends on the state of the structure that one is tempted to join. Some are so dysfunctional, and marked by a deep resistance to change, that it would be better to let them collapse and start fresh than to strive to renovate them. It’s up to everyone to decide which ones deserve a place on this list.
It also depends on the power dynamics that run through a given institution. An environmentalist who would like to change the practices of a large polluting company “from the inside” would no doubt come up against the need for profitability of her new employer. If the business model is essentially based on the production of a certain pollution or the generation of new needs for impulsive (over) consumption, our ecologist could only seek to do harm reduction. If we join its ranks, it is to generate “less worse” on its own scale – nothing more.
The answer to the big question also depends on those around you. Often, especially in politics, profound changes are expected from a badly surrounded headliner, who will face internal resistance. One might think of the case of Anita Anand, the new Minister of National Defense, charged with putting an end to structural misogyny in the Canadian Army and the culture of impunity in the face of sexual misconduct. Can a single woman, however competent, be able to effect such a transformation without having important strategic allies in key positions in the Armed Forces?
Without entourage, these “faces of change”, most often women, face what is called the glass cliff. They reach positions of power in traditional institutions when they are in crisis; the internal forces do everything to put them in the way; they are made to bear the political cost for the lack of results resulting from their vain efforts; they resign.
The ability to change things “from the inside” still depends on those who have chosen to exert their influence from the outside. It is because the external pressure exists that the people who choose to position themselves as internal diplomats obtain the ear of the leaders, or the political capital necessary to implement more or less substantial changes. If feminist movements had remained polite and kind, women on the “inside” would not have been able to advocate for the policies that had the greatest impact on gender equity. If young people did not make their voice heard in the streets, large companies would not see green marketing as an intrinsic component of their reputation.
Ultimately, it depends on his personality and preferences. A person committed to one cause or another but remaining deeply affable, tending to avoid any conflict even on questions of fundamental principles, risks being assimilated rather quickly by a traditional structure – especially if he is poorly surrounded. In contrast, a person who has a lot of difficulty with compromise is also likely to be unhappy with large structures where everything has to be constantly negotiated. It takes a happy blend of these two extremes to even aspire to be useful “from within.”
To assess whether the wave of new arrivals in municipal politics will really be able to “do politics differently” in the months to come, all of these factors will have to be taken into consideration. Who is well surrounded, and who is in the minority among the other elected officials, or has had too many old guard advisers imposed by his party or his public service to have free rein? Who is trying to establish a political platform strongly supported by civil society movements and organizations, and who finds himself isolated in his desire for change? Who will seek to be loved by everyone, even their opponents, to the point of putting aside their disturbing ideas, and who will find the right tone to present them? Who is best protected from the glass cliff?
It is with these questions, and many others, that we will be able to better understand the situations in which these new recruits find themselves, and to adjust our expectations accordingly.