Does politics justify cynicism and disillusionment? | Éric Montpetit | TEDxMontreal

Cynicism and disillusionment with politics has reached new heights in Western democracies. Why? Éric Montpetit, a specialist in public policy, argues that since the early 1990s the media coverage of politics shows a politics that entertains at the expense of a politics that works. The public is thus kept in the dark that alongside the vicious attacks between political adversaries, there is a more peaceful policy that improves our lives. In his talk, Montpetit lifts the veil on this working policy.

Éric Montpetit is a political science professor at the Université de Montréal and vice-dean - teaching staff - at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He has a Ph.D in comparative and Canadian public policy at McMaster University. He has authored three books, co-authored three others and published over 80 articles or book chapters. His latest book, In Defense of Pluralism: Policy Disagreement and Its Media Coverage, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2016. Montpetit's work examines the politics of scientific expertise that engages when public policy stakeholders begin to express divergent views on government action.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

When you think about politics,

you probably think
of images of great debates,

of shocking statements,
or of protesters who demonstrate.

Unlikely to come to mind
are images of public consultations,

of government reports,

or of expert meetings
in a room without decorations.

The politics we show you
is the one that entertains.

You are not shown the politics that works.

Why?

As a public policy specialist,

this is a question I've been asking myself
for more than 20 years.

I am convinced that politics
works better than we think

and that the cynicism about it
is exaggerated.

But we cannot count on the media
to make us understand this.

Almost exactly 28 years ago,

I was glued to the screen
of my television,

like millions of viewers around the world,

watching images like this one,

showing the start of a war,
the first Gulf War.

Thanks to the continuous news,
which was in its very early stages,

we could see, live,
the progress of this war

hour by hour.

The news then took a captivating turn.

After the war,

to keep their ratings,
to keep your attention,

the media turned to the most
spectacular aspects of politics:

to the controversies
and conflicts of politicians

that are well illustrated
by the first images that I showed you.

Today, the medias are forced
to show you a politics that entertains.

The continuous news
has transformed the media dynamic,

and social media has only
accentuated the phenomenon.

Politicians, who need to be seen,
and other political actors too

have adjusted to this new
political context.

To be seen, they don't hesitate
to shout their indignation.

And sometimes they scream very loud.

They put on a show.

If rather than showing you Donald Trump,

you were shown images
of a rational discussion

on a serious subject of public policy -

the regulation of maritime
transport for example,

a committee discussion
much like what we see on the screen -

you would quickly go watch something else.

The politics that works
is less entertaining.

It captivates the public less.

When was the last time
you visited a government website

to inform yourself about public policy?

The minimum wage policy for example
or the food safety policy?

Information like this is easy to find.

Since the advent of the Internet,

governments have required themselves

to release a wealth of information
about what they are doing.

Today, Western democracies
are more transparent

than they have ever been.

But I suppose you are like me.

In the evening, when you get home
after a long day at work,

you do not want to read the latest report
from the Labor Department

on the threshold beyond which
the minimum wage harms the economy

or that of the Department of Health
on microbial contamination

in poultry slaughterhouses.

We prefer more entertaining content.

Besides, some time ago, I participated
in a television program with journalists

during which I deplored
a media coverage of politics

that I find too negative.

The present journalists
were quick to remind me

that when they show positive news,
people change channels.

So, there is a trap
that is difficult to get out of.

We show you the politics that entertains

because if we showed you
the politics that works,

you would look elsewhere.

The political conflicts that entertain you
also fuel your cynicism.

They undermine your confidence
in the political system.

So, your attitude towards politics
becomes more and more negative.

When Canadians are asked
which professions they see positively,

only 24% mention politics.

In contrast,

89% of the Canadian population
mentions scientists.

And these results
are not unique to Canada.

Similar results have been obtained
in the United States and Europe.

Such cynicism about politics is dangerous.

It sets the table for politicians

who, like Donald Trump,
want to tear the system apart.

And it would be a shame
if they were to succeed

because politics has improved
our lives considerably

since the end of the Second World War,

and it continues to do so.

How?

By working a bit like science,
which obviously inspires confidence.

Scientists are often part
of the politics that works.

We don't set health standards
in slaughterhouses

without talking to microbiologists.

Nor do we set the minimum wage
without talking to economists.

You should also know that the scientists
who participate in the politics that works

often come from universities.

They, therefore, enjoy great independence.

And perhaps a little
because of this independence,

their messages don't always
suit politicians.

Indeed, scientists want their knowledge
to be used to improve policy,

not to entertain an audience
fond of conflicts.

They don't like to be part of a show.

When politicians and the media
take too much interest in them,

they quickly return to the tranquility
of their laboratories

and abandon any involvement
in the political world.

In 2012, I participated in a conference
in Boulder, Colorado,

which brought together
great researchers on climate change,

some of whom were among the first
to make us understand

the seriousness of this problem.

After hearing a few presentations,

I had a doubt,

wondering if I was attending a conference
of climate skeptics instead.

Knowledge that I thought was solid
was seriously questioned.

Everything was scrutinized:

the ways to estimate
the temperature of the past,

the methods of measuring
the current temperature,

and the validity of the simulations
that are used to predict future changes.

Obviously, no cameras in the room.

I quickly understood I wasn't attending
a climate skeptics conference.

What I saw was nothing other than
the scientific method at work.

Science advances knowledge
by constantly questioning it.

And scientists build their credibility
by adopting this attitude.

Now imagine a politician you would elect

because you like his position
on climate change.

Imagine him casting doubt,

not on the existence of climate change,

but on the relevance of a carbon tax
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

You should know that there are
other policies that achieve this goal

and that the carbon tax is certainly not
a superior option to these other policies.

Doubting would therefore be legitimate.

But in the context
of the politics that entertains,

your politician would quickly
be pilloried by his opponents.

They would say that he lacks conviction,

that he yields to pressure easily,

that he is weak,

and in the face of these criticisms,

perhaps you would yourself feel
like you have been betrayed

by your politicians.

But in fact, he would only have behaved

like a scientist who questions
his knowledge in view of improving it.

This is no doubt why scientists run away

when they are expected to participate
in the politics that entertains.

The politics that entertains
is a politics of conflicts.

Its participants must make exaggerated
remarks about their adversaries

with absolute confidence.

Criticism, attacks
are more about opponents

than about arguments.

Doubting is not allowed.

Doubts are associated with weakness.

Anyone who doubts would immediately
be called a flip flop.

In contrast,

science is a world of caution,

nuances,

questioning,

doubt,

and sometimes of opinion change.

Again,

scientists are improving their knowledge
by constantly questioning it.

Scientists are often comfortable
with the politics that works

because it has
a lot in common with science.

The politics that works
is open to diverse view points,

it is moderate,

it is centered on arguments,

and it allows everyone
to doubt their opinions.

Now,

we should avoid opposing too much
the politics that entertains

to the politics that works.

If politics works overall,

it's because people who participate
in the politics that entertains

are also able to contribute
to the politics that works.

For more than 10 years,

my research has focused on the policy
of genetically modified organisms, GMOs,

in North America and Europe.

One day in Brussels,

I see a report in a newspaper
on one of the famous anti-GMO operations

organized by Greenpeace,

much like the one we see on the screen.

In the report,

a representative of the industry
reacted to the operation.

With great indignation,

he asserted that Greenpeace,
basically, had only one goal:

not environmental protection,

but industry bankruptcy.

A few days later, I came across
this same industry representative

at a meeting organized
by the European Commission

on its regulation
on the traceability of GMO seeds.

In addition to industry representatives,

the meeting included scientists,

consumer representatives,

farm groups,

and environmentalists,
including Greenpeace.

At the meeting, no one
accused anyone of anything.

The discussions focused
on each other's arguments.

All participants were working
to improve the regulation.

No wonder the meeting helped
improve the regulation

and at least in my view, strengthened
the credibility of the participants.

Meetings of this type take place daily
in the capitals of Western democracies.

And they improve our lives.

The food we eat is safer than ever,

as are our means of transportation
and our workplaces.

In many locations, crime
has been decreasing steadily for years.

We are preserving our heritage better

and have more protected
green spaces than before.

Air quality in our cities is better,

and access to health care,
although imperfect,

has nothing to do
with what it was 50 years ago.

Our life expectancy has never been longer.

Unfortunately,

we too rarely realize that this progress
is due to public policy

because the politics that we are shown
is the politics that entertains.

This politics also
unduly increases our cynicism.

How to get out of the trap?

By being well aware that politics
is more than what we see in the media.

Politics is not
just the politicians we know.

It's also meetings
of people you don't know.

In the evening, after a long day at work,

you can continue to watch
politicians who fight on TV

rather than reading
a government report on public policy.

The quarrels of politicians
are much more entertaining.

I prefer to watch that too.

But be aware that alongside this
exists a politics that is less visible,

much less glamorous,

but much more important.

A politics that engages people
who do not necessarily seek notoriety,

but who have experience, expertise,
and knowledge useful for public policy.

People who can doubt
and reconsider their opinion

when the arguments of others justify it.

This politics works.

It improves our lives.

Like science,
politics deserves our trust.

We should be less cynical.

Thank you.

(Applause)