By Don White.

If nothing else, results from the recent federal election reveal pronounced regional disparities across our country. Differences that will, no doubt, be the source of ongoing discord for the next four years. But that’s only to be expected, we’re told. We should learn to live with it.

Unfortunately, much the same might be said about Nanaimo. We’re a microcosm of the larger, national arena with the same kinds of discord, the same tensions – only on a smaller scale.

But let’s remind ourselves: having alternative perspectives and voicing them is not the problem. Differing views make us who we are.

In Nanaimo, we also have divided camps battling with each other; neighbourhoods taking on City Hall; and disputes over applying the basic principles of governance. And, like those anticipated across Canada, the conflicts here are often framed in a way that affords only one side to be a winner.

When City Council wants to consider creation of bike lanes along Front Street to encourage active forms of transportation (read bikes and other self-propelled options), we hear that it will be a loss for cars.

When Nanaimo’s Old City Neighbourhood fights spot rezoning of 388 Machleary Street, it’s represented by pro-developers as undercutting the broader municipal objective of densifying.

And when Council chooses one of what always seem to be only two choices on the table, statements appear on social media that Council is weak for caving under public pressure.

But let’s remind ourselves: having alternative perspectives and voicing them is not the problem. Differing views make us who we are. The real problem is framing the reconciliation of differing perspectives as zero sum contests, where for every winner there’s a loser. When half of us must always feel defeated, it’s no wonder we feel put upon.

And that’s a problem. Not a small one. But it’s not a problem we necessarily need to live with. Rather than taking it as given, we can choose to find ways of accommodating our disparities.

It doesn’t always have to be that if you win, I lose. Or the converse. Instead, we can opt to respect and preserve our differences while, simultaneously, respecting and preserving what we hold to be the common good. Striving for a city-wide monoculture is never the only possible solution. One size does not fit all. No kind of blanket uniformity will ever work. We are all too different for that.

Much can be gained by switching to emphasizing inclusion. Not all alternatives are mutually exclusive.

Instead of always choosing either/or, we need to ask: Why not have some unique areas within our city? Why should all be painted with the same brush? Why not provide support for bikes AND cars? Why can’t both alternatives be winners?

Much can be gained by switching to emphasizing inclusion. The same with accommodating differences between us. Different priorities usually exist for valid reasons. So let’s drop our knee-jerk opposition to different views when they’e expressed and to always assuming we’ll see a loser in every win. Not all alternatives are mutually exclusive.

Habitual rejection of different perspectives is a hallmark of small towns. We need to move beyond such thinking. And we can’t realistically expect others to do that for us. We should not rely on City Council to conduct our business on a level higher than the level we occupy, ourselves. It is up to us, not Council, to raise the bar. The degree to which we accommodate each other’s beliefs, values, and priorities will determine the community we have.