Mayor’s lack of competition shows we need a shakeup

Greatness grows out of conflict and strife and competition. It’s a law of nature.

Ever since David slew the giant Goliath with a stone, the most rudimentary weapon of war, human beings have relished a good fight, even one that appears lopsided.

Alas, Torontonians may not even be treated to such a contest in this year’s municipal election, now officially underway.

Toronto’s incumbent Mayor John Tory could return to city hall in October, virtually unimpeded, except for a few would-be Davids. The odds say, landslide. That doesn’t help anybody, least of all our city.

It’s not that Tory will damage the city as a result. The evidence from his fourth year in office suggests he will run around every day from pillar to post, filling potholes, making announcements, being Mr. Mayor. And, for the most part, we’re OK with that.

But many days, those who dream a little wonder how great and spectacular we might be with a system that encourages innovation and out-of-the box thinking; what kind of transit system, for example, would emerge if transit planning was unshackled from the current provincial party apparatus that delivers a subway to votes, not to passengers.

In politics, competing ideas and ideologies and solutions are an essential ingredient in improving our experiments in democracy, especially at the base level of municipalities. The fact that so little changes in our cities and towns is a direct result of a lack of competition.

This is most abjectly observed at the mayor’s office — among the most secure, calcified and, as such, status quo political jobs in the country.

Can you name a political leader with a more cushy existence than a mayor? Taking the title to an extreme, worthy of the Almighty, we call our mayors Your Worship — as if positioned on some celestial cloud uncontaminated by the travails of the masses.

Once in power, it takes heaven and earth to uproot an incumbent mayor. They position themselves at the front of every parade where they gladhand and promote from sunup to sundown.

The mayor hands out keys to the city, models our team jerseys, stands up and cries with the wounded and rejoices with the victorious. He is a friend to every premier, ally to every prime minister. He or she is a virtual mama or papa who grows old, imperceptibly, right before your eyes until time passes everyone.

Elections, once every four years, are supposed to rouse us out of our stupor long enough to at least give a cursory glance at the state of our city. But when the elections themselves fail to provide a string of alternate visions of what the metropolis might look like, heaven help us.

Sports teams get lazy after a championship, unless management injects some new players to keep the pack hungry and motivated. Without John McEnroe, Björn Borg is not as good. Arnie Palmer and Jack Nicklaus brought out the best in each other. At least, so the theory goes.

But when it comes to running our city, the most important and influential unit in our democracy, we languish in the status quo.

We vote our mayors out of office about as frequently as the Raptors win the first game of a playoff series. Altering the game plan may not guarantee victory, but we know what the past has yielded. So, why not try:

Term limits — with some provision that a particularly brilliant incumbent can seek to run another term, if 75 per cent of the voters say yes. The obvious benefit is a constant turnover of leadership and, with it, urgency on the part of leaders to innovate, modernize and remodel quickly where they now pursue a slow, passive, lifeless reign.

Political parties. This helps to define and codify and brand the vision and help voters understand the direction of a candidate. Can we design it to block traditional parties and institute municipal ones untethered to their provincial or federal kin? So much the better. Citizens perennially tell pollsters they don’t like this option.

But the creation of municipal parties may give our local democracy the kind of jolt needed to spark new approaches to local government. For example, we would certainly uncover a more cogent, untainted way of planning and constructing transit.

Create super councillors who are, in effect, mayors in waiting. Have them run for major portfolios such as transportation and housing and put them on the mayor’s executive or cabinet, with a mandate to reform and transform the department.

None of the above is a magic bullet. Neither is the combined force of them all. But they provide an impetus for trying something different than what has trended towards lethargy and stagnation.

Royson James is a former Star reporter who is a current freelance columnist based in Toronto. Follow him on Twitter: @roysonjames