There is plenty of hand-wringing these days as governmentscome to terms with decreasing voter turnout in Canada. In 2000, only 61 per cent ofeligible voters bothered to vote federally down from a high of 79 per cent in thelate 1950s and early 1960s and a drop from 70 per cent ten years ago. In the most recent election, June 2004, voter turnout was 60.5 per cent.

Much of the emphasis appears to be on blaming the non-voters for theirapathy, for being uninformed, and for having a “weak sense of civicresponsibility.” But is it really any wonder that citizens have becomedisillusioned?

For the past two decades, during a period of economic turmoil, governmentshave insisted that there is little that they can do to support citizens.Governments have chosen to abandon their responsibility to protect workers,communities, the environment and the vulnerable.

It seems reasonable for a citizen to conclude: if governments and politicalinstitutions are unwilling, or claim to be unable, to address the issuesthat are important to me, why should I bother voting?

Governments have consistently rejected the priorities of Canadians. Whilepolls tell us that voters during the 1990s were most interested in socialprograms and the environment, the Liberals chose to prioritize the deficitand tax cuts. In the process they gutted the very programs that we saidmattered most.

Governments in Canada actively sought to decrease citizens’ expectations andto stifle public debate. Rather than talking about balancing prioritieswith the need to address the financial challenges, we were force-fed themyth that the country was in a fiscal crisis.

We were told by government and big business that we had no choice but todrastically cut programs and to turn our future over to the private sector.

We were told that government could not and should not play a positive rolein our lives and in our communities.

The scope of public policy was decreased. Governments’ capacity to promotethe public interest was diminished. The direction of the economy and oursociety was privatized. The rights and entitlements of citizenship were cutback and redirected to the market over which we have very little controlunless, of course, we’re wealthy.

Hand in hand with the commitment to a “free” market economy is the promotionof the myth that anything to do with governments is bad. Governments aredepicted as wasteful, corrupt and intrusive while markets are portrayed asefficient and responsive. No wonder many Canadians have becomedisillusioned with the political process and the institutions of government.

And no wonder some Canadians are more disillusioned than others. AnElections Canada sponsored study notes that youth and lower income citizensare less likely to vote. Youth unemployment is twice the overall rate ofunemployment. Tuition fees have skyrocketed over the past decade, asgovernments cut funding to post-secondary education and youth are told thereis nothing that can be done. Many low income Canadians have given up hopethat governments will do anything to provide adequate support to theunemployed and the working poor. What difference will voting make?

At another level the low voter turnout should not come as a big surprise.Parliamentary democracy was not designed to empower and engage themajority of citizens. Historically it developed as rear guard action bypolitical and economic elites to maintain their position of privilege whileappeasing the demands of the sometimes unruly masses.

Most of us know where the real concentration of power lies and it’s not inthe hands of your average citizen or even with the governments that weelect. The real influence and power rests with the few citizens and largecorporations that dominate the economy.

The challenge for democratic governments in the context of capitalism is howto manage the demands of the majority, while facilitating the accumulationof wealth for the few. Maintaining the notion of political equality of allcitizens in the context of increased economic inequality is no small task.But a failure to achieve this risks undermining the legitimacy ofgovernments and political institutions in the eyes of citizens.

It is hardly surprising, then, that during elections politicians present uswith a populist agenda, but once elected, the agenda changes. In the early1990s, for example, then-finance minister Paul Martin campaigned on the Liberal Red Book which was fullof promises to benefit us all. Once in office, he made deep cuts to socialprograms. Conservative leader Stephen Harper is engaged in the same exercise, claiming during this past campaign that he can do the impossible — provide drastic tax cuts and stillsupport social programs, protect the environment and balance the budgets.

Our democracy is a work in progress and reforms must be made. Proportionalrepresentation would certainly help. All votes would count and governmentswould be more accountable. And more citizens might vote.

But we need to also be aware of the limits of voting. Elections are but oneaspect of keeping our society democratic and progressive in the context ofunequal power. Of equal importance in holding governments accountable andpromoting and defending citizens’ interests are labour, environmental andsocial justice organizations and popular movements.