Since France Bélisle announced that she was leaving her position as mayor of Gatineau, the municipal community and political observers have multiplied reflections on the reasons which push elected officials to prematurely abandon their mandate in the current political context. The revelation that more than 800 of the 8,000 local elected officials have thrown in the towel since the November 2021 elections sounds the alarm on a troubling phenomenon that directly threatens the vitality of our municipal democracy.
The toxicity of the political climate, internal quarrels and the often unjustified attacks suffered by elected officials on digital platforms are regularly singled out as factors of demoralization. These elements weigh heavily in the balance for many elected officials who choose to renounce their commitment, a decision which, far from being trivial, raises important questions.
In addition to the psychological repercussions, leaving a municipal office before the end of one’s mandate results in financial losses for the resigning elected official. Such an approach is therefore carefully considered and reflects deep introspection. It is essential to recognize the seriousness of this decision and to avoid hastily judging it, whatever the motivations.
Getting involved in municipal politics means choosing to devote yourself to improving the daily lives of citizens. As I often point out during my conferences, what sets the municipal level apart from other levels of government is its direct effect on daily life. As soon as a resident leaves his home, he enters the scope of action of the municipality. Decisions made at this level immediately have an effect on one’s routines and immediate environment.
This direct access to our political representatives undeniably brings governance closer to citizens. A notable feature of the municipal system is the possibility given to citizens to address their elected officials directly each month during City Council meetings. In Montreal, for example, this happens twice a month, including borough council meetings. During my 12 years at Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie town hall, I had the chance to participate in more than 120 councils. It was a valuable opportunity to dialogue and answer questions from Rosepatrians.
I speak of luck, because it is a unique moment of direct democracy which makes our work more concrete. It is true that certain regulars often furnish the sessions. Moreover, they are regularly seen at Infoman. However, this is anecdotal. Preparing for a public question session is demanding and requires a considerable investment in time and energy to meet expectations, without forgetting that hint of anxiety felt at the idea of facing an audience that may be skeptical or critical.
I remember a significant episode, that of a citizen suffering from Diogenes syndrome, a disorder which is characterized by the excessive accumulation of useless objects. Feeling wronged, he initiated proceedings against the City, the police and the Ombudsman. He accused them of theft for having emptied his accommodation, which had become unsanitary and dangerous. In this affair, I was designated as the person responsible for his misfortunes. His presence became more and more threatening with each council meeting, as did his aggressiveness.
One day, he went so far as to bring a huge rat trap adorned with my photograph, which he even displayed in front of his house. Faced with the escalation of the situation, many began to worry about my safety, which led to the implementation of certain measures. An armed police officer stood discreetly behind a door to the council chamber and, in an emergency, I had to say a specific word to trigger an intervention if the situation required it.
There is no buffer zone between municipal elected officials and the population. This is true in all areas of the work of elected officials, including on social networks. This proximity, although rewarding, is accompanied by an often personal management of communications, exacerbated by a glaring lack of resources. And this deficit is not only financial; Above all, it demonstrates a blatant lack of political support, the opposite of what elected officials at other levels of government experience.
This reality largely contributes to the massacre observed in municipal ranks. Direct contact with citizens, while it allows a better understanding of their concerns, can also cause considerable stress, especially in the absence of a shield against microaggressions and virulent personal attacks. Over time, the effect is tangible, too often transforming elected officials into regular subscribers of antacids.
Faced with these realities, it is hardly surprising that some elected officials decide to throw in the towel or even put themselves on “autopilot” mode by ceasing to make decisions that could generate popular discontent. It became a strategy of self-preservation. In a spirit of reflection on the revitalization of our municipal democracy in Quebec, here is a concrete line of action: offering local elected officials the essential support to face the tumults of daily management. This is perhaps a helping hand they desperately need to transform the burden of their task as local elected officials.