Efficiency. Responsiveness. Order.

They were all perfectly present in the 48^th regular meeting of the Columbus City Council, an affair where proceedings were dominated by ordinance after ordinance, read and passed with such little variance that each successive proposal blended into the next. The whole of the meeting lasted no more than an hour and a half.  

It was, in no uncertain terms, boring. Standard government: well-oiled motions, seconds, and passages that each aimed to address a given community issue. Chairs of committees responding to local issues through local government. The only glimmer of disunity? A single vote of abstention on the funding of a local park renovation. 

It was refreshing to watch, a reminder that there is a very real political world where smaller constituencies and more homogenous populations enable simpler, idealistic governance. Tasked with representing and addressing the needs of a city, the work of the council is predisposed to a more efficient process. Councilmembers, each representing districts of around 100,000 people, are generally liberal (the council consists of Democrats and nonpartisans). Ordinance items have to do with funding of projects, recognition of community members, or outreach. 

At left: Districts of Columbus, at right: political leaning of Columbus

That level of simplicity is tantalizing. Progress, unchecked by controversy or competing beliefs, expanded to a national level, is a dream of politicians across the board. Elimination of gridlock, if achieved, could allow for the policy items that the left and right identify as critical to fixing key issues in our country: without significant opposition from a minority of wealthy Republicans, a wealth tax could finally start to solve problems of economic inequality. Without the presence of extreme Democrats, stricter and more direct border policy could finally start to solve issues associated with illegal immigration. 

The desire for an end to gridlock is not a uniquely American problem. In other countries, it has pushed citizens toward candidates who promise change to the system, freeing up legislatures to pass more legislation with less opposition. Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg, two scholars in the field of democracy, note that in some eastern European countries, such as Poland or Hungary, citizens have “embraced populist leaders who promise to end the gridlock that is democracy’s consequence.” He goes on to note that candidates in the 2016 election used these extra-jurisdictional events to show that their partisanship was part of a global trend. 

A common pattern in political rhetoric surrounding gridlock is to place blame on the opposite party as causing stagnation, rather than referring to it as the “consequence of democracy” that Huq and Ginsburg theorize it to be. This, combined with severely divisive policies, can lead to a moralizing effect. At the extreme end of this process of polarization, political scientist Jennifer McCoy concludes that “each camp questions the moral legitimacy of the others, viewing the opposing camp and its policies as an existential threat.” 

McCoy furthers that this polarization leads to greater degrees of gridlock, as communication and trust break down and harm bipartisan collaboration. This creates a cycle: division reinforces and increases division. 

To adequately combat this process, it’s crucial to understand and debunk the foundational assumptions upon which it rests. The first of these is the assumption that uniformity in large scale politics is possible. While smaller populations of constituencies, (such as those in cities like Columbus) can have the ideological consistency for a largely uniform government, larger legislatures on the state level or national level cannot—at least not without sacrificing democratic ideals. 

This sacrifice of democracy for legislative majority was detailed by Jane Meyer, a journalist for The New Yorker, in her work reporting on gerrymandering in state legislatures. In Ohio, she wrote, a Republican majority redistricted the state’s districts to give their party a veto-proof majority. In doing so, they radically changed the balance of seats in relation to citizens’ political preferences. 

At almost any large scale, the political ideologies of various groups will mean that such a foolproof majority is unattainable. To attain the level of cooperative efficiency seen in spaces such as city councils, parties will have to change the rules of the game to favor themselves. For voters, this means a difficult choice between democracy and the passage of policies they prefer. Political scientist Milan Svolik noted that when faced with this choice, “voters appear to be willing to trade off [democratic principles] for [partisan interests].” 

Understanding that there cannot be a democratic system that passes constant favorable policies is key for the electorate. Gridlock and concession are a feature of democracy, not its flaw. 

The second key understanding which must be present is an acknowledgment of the validity of all parties involved in the political process. Returning to the city council meeting, following the adjournment of the actual political session, the council took a chance to hear people from the community speak about issues that mattered to them. Citizens came from across the board to bring a wide range of issues to the attention of the group: one man brought up the issue of speeding in his neighborhood, another a plea for the council to condemn violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. No matter the relevance to the council members, the president took the time to refer each person individually to someone who could help them with their issue. 

Then, toward the end of the group, a girl came to the lectern with two of her friends. She demanded that the council take steps to standardize policing, decrying the system as unjust, racially biased, and untrustworthy. To the side of the room, silent for the entirety of the speech, stood a police officer overseeing the proceedings. 

The man’s face didn’t show anger. It showed sadness, yes. It showed a degree of pain. But it also showed empathy. He listened, silently, as the group finished and the President spoke. Then they sat down, and the proceedings continued. 

Many people would have reacted with frustration. They would have closed off. But by listening, the officer took a crucial step in slowing down the process of intergroup conflict that so often brings out the worst in politics. By rejecting the other side as outside the uniform, homogenous group of our own political group, the one which we believe to be in the ‘right’, it becomes easier to dehumanize others. McCoy links this to a causal chain of behavior, ending with democratic erosion. 

By understanding that to preserve democracy we must reject complete partisan success, we can begin to see the process of compromise as necessary. By humanizing the ‘other’ through empathy and patience, and by taking the time to hear and respond to every voice, we can begin to see it as beneficial. 

The lesson to take away from city council meetings is not that life would be easier if we could simply attain the level of efficiency contained therein. The lesson is that by embracing elements that resist polarization and division, gridlock may cease to be such a negative force; and that if done correctly, they could be a path to bettering our democracy.