There was a meeting of people interested in renewing democracy in this province held in Edmonton last Monday night. I was there, and so was my laptop. Here's the report.All through the evening, people were pausing and interrupting things to point out someone notable in the room. Rather than break this post up in that way, here’s the list of names I caught: Ben Henderson, Brigid Pastoor, Jim Wachowich, Rick Miller, Mo Elsalhy, Bruce Miller, Wendy Andrews, Harry Chase, Kevin Taft. I apologize for the inevitable spelling errors. :)7:06 – There is no wireless in the room, so this will be live-to-disc. The room is a junior-high sized gymnasium with a colourful mural of the neighbourhood on the front wall. There are a few media people, the four guests, two hosts, and at last count, about 120 people. They’ve already brought out more chairs once.7:09 – David Swann and Laurie Blakeman start off the proceedings. Justin Archer helped to organize the event. He greeted me at the door. You may remember him as the Alberta Liberal pundit on the CTV News during the last provincial election.7:10 – “We’re not here so much as liberal party members as people who want to reconnect Albertans with their democracy.” – David Swann7:12 – “I’m in my fourth term. I’d really like to see a change of government before I die.” – Laurie Blakeman.The panel is introduced. They are Sarah Arthurs, whom you may remember as the woman who organized these meetings in Calgary; Joe Englin, a past provincial Green Party candidate; Les Brost, a columnist with the Calgary Herald; and Ken Chapman, a blogger and strategy consultant.7:15 – Sarah Arthurs begins her "first political speech not in the shower" by doing a few crowd participation activities. She points out places in which a lot of people have agreed in the conversations in Calgary. There are process problems, the environment is a huge issue, and there is a need for a long-term vision.“We need to get political.” She talks about all the volunteers and civil activists who exist in this province and what would happen if they were all directing their energy at politics.On parties: “It seems evident that none of the [vehicles] we’re using now have worked effectively.”She asked people to get involved, and for them to get involved in a deep way, that may involve giving up something else.Impressively, she finished within the allotted 10 minutes.7:23 – Joe begins by saying that people need to be told that the authority and power is theirs. He suggests that there are a lot of people that didn’t vote last time because they see themselves as conservatives, but couldn’t vote for the PCs, and couldn’t see an alternative. He said it’s your own responsibility to do something, or help the people who are. And to have no tolerance for people who say it can’t be done. “Democracy is not something you have, it’s something you do.”We don’t need to unite the left. We need to look at the issues that affect the people, even in rural areas. “They know when they’re getting hosed, they just don’t know how to fight it.” He suggests that you have to tell people that they are giving up their own power when they vote for the PCs blindly.He’s an impressive speaker. And two for two coming in on time.7:29 – Les says we are in danger of shifting from a democracy to a corporate oligarchy with the way that the government has taken regulation “out from under the dome.” He’s most upset about the dumbing down of Alberta. It’s now bad to be an intellectual, to be a thinker. “We start by calling the media on their crap.” He says he’s seen the most egregiously hateful, vicious things written in newspapers before elections, and no one ever complains to the Alberta Press Council.And once you’ve talked to the columnist, and the editor, and the press council, you should talk to their advertisers. (Ed: At this, the room went strangely quiet.) If you want change in this province, you have to change the media.We are conditioned, he says, to make our electoral decisions on the basis of the guy we’d like to sit down and have a beer with. It’s sad that we’re not attracting people of the calibre that were in the Lougheed government.Again – three for three – he comes in within the allotted 10 minutes.7:41 – Ken has the best start to his speech of the four of them, taking advantage of the fact he's going last: “They’re all wrong.”We’ve been let down by every institution in our world. The world we now know lives on a networked, relational basis. The old structures are based on hierarchy and authority, and they are inadequate.No one knows why people didn’t vote, but if you don’t use their rights, you lose them. Voting is giving your sovereignty in part to a system.It’s a responsibility of citizenship, not an issue of partisanship.We like to kick the shit out of politicians. It’s wrong. It’s a damned difficult job, and dangerous. We are not going to attract our best and our brightest if we continue to belittle the people who try.We don’t have people in power who can deal with the complexities of our society. The world has changed, the institutions have not. The old adversarial system doesn’t work anymore. It guarantees you an answer, but not necessarily the best answer, a good answer, or an adequate answer. Just an answer. We have low-definition leaders in a high-definition world. Change should be done civilly, it doesn’t have to be partisan, and it needs to be citizenship-based.Not everyone is going to show up. And we can’t make them, because they will do it for the wrong reasons and be that much more likely to be easily duped.Be kind to politicians, be civil, and for god’s sake, show up.Bam. Four for four.My thoughts:Everyone but Ken was trying to answer the question of what’s wrong with Alberta democracy by making an assumption that the problem was a lack of an effective opposition party. Ken said it was a lack of voting, and inadequate structures, and offered nothing by way of solutions except changing the education system.I agreed with a lot that Ken had to say. Particularly on the point that we shouldn’t be beating up on politicians as a class. But it’s unfortunate that he was there because an inordinate amount of time was spent disagreeing with him in the question and answer period that came afterward. I’m not going to summarize the Q & A for that reason. There were a lot of people coming forward to complain about their pet issue, or disagree with Ken, or Green party activists trying to paint Joe favourably and either poach disaffected members of other parties or create disaffected members by criticizing the elected members present.There was one very interesting omission. Sarah Arthurs was the only person, the entire night, to even allude to the need for electoral reform in this province. Even that was only a reference to "process problems." The only reason I know she was talking about electoral reform is because I have looked at the sticky notes. That's a problem, and now that I notice it, I'm ashamed I didn't say something about it myself.There were a few interesting disagreements. One was whether a re-invigoration of Alberta democracy can or must be issue-based. Joe and Les thought it had to be. Ken said it should be about values. I’m with Ken. One lady in the Q & A put it really well: “You can coalesce around issues, but you have to govern on values.”Another was on the confrontational/partisan front. Some people, like Ken and some audience members, called for a non-confrontational approach. Joe, in particular, was more than happy to insist on a war metaphor. It’s a battle of ideas, and you have to fight to win. Ken was derided by one commenter near the end of the night who said it’s very easy for a member of the majority party to suggest that everyone else should be post-partisan. Good point. On the other hand, I think Joe is perhaps a little militant for my tastes. I think his motivation comes too much from opposition to something and not enough from a desire to create something else. But I also agree with those who say you can’t win if you’re not fighting.One commenter, a professor at the University of Alberta (surprisingly, one I had never met), suggested that Ken was right with regards to the structure of our democracy. He said that we are starved for conversation in this society, and we need structures that will encourage people to have face-to-face conversations. He made his point by commenting on the 120 people who were all in this room, but all looking at only 4 others. I thought that was insightful, and an interesting contrast to the couple of people who suggested that the internet was the future.Of course, the big controversy is do we try to merge, do we try to reform, or do we create something new. Merger was a non-starter in this group. Ken Chapman called it a “mug’s game.” No one thought it would be enough, and very few seemed to think it was even possible. There weren’t a lot of opinions expressed on the other two options. David Swann said we have to either, “reinvent the ALP, and become so attractive that everyone in the place wants to join us, or start something new. The existing institutional party system is not working.”David invited people to the ALP AGM, saying that if party renewal is going to work, that’s where it will have to happen. I asked David before the meeting started where he stood on the matter, and he said he was right on the fence about whether the ALP or something new is the way to go. I didn’t get that vibe from his comments. The words “become so attractive that everyone in the place wants to join us” were spoken with a tone of incredulity. I don’t think he thinks it can happen. I don’t, either. And we're not alone. From talking to some friends and listening to people around the room it seems that there are people in other parties – actually, ALL parties - who are ready to build something new.In the end, I left the meeting no longer wondering if it was possible that a new political movement could be formed in Alberta, but wondering instead what form it will take. I’m convinced now, that whatever happens to the ALP – and its future seems ever more in doubt – there will soon be another choice.It’s an exciting time to be involved in provincial politics.