You can cry if you want to, but it’s not your party
For some Green party members – maybe many – the day that a new leader is elected can not come a moment too soon. Even yesterday was too late.
But despite their sentiments in an ideal political world that day should really come after the next election or before in the event the current leader decides to take a walk in the snow.
Regrettably for those members chomping at the bit, it rarely snows in August. So there’s little likelihood of such a stroll on Bay St. before this year’s biannual meeting.
This is not to say that what’s happening in the party is not deplorable. It is.
It’s a travesty of democracy and good governance. The damn the torpedoes approach to the party’s constitution is not the way to build a political party.
Through design or incompetence, the party’s leadership has placed the party in an untenable position. They should be ashamed of themselves for letting it get to this point.
They had a chance to fix what they perceived as a flaw in the constitution in 2009 at the postponed 2008 Pictou biannual meeting. They found the time to bar a member from running for Council at that meeting, but they didn’t have the time – or the foresight – to see the train coming barreling down the rails.
They’ve had over a year since Pictou to find a viable solution. They didn’t.
And now the party faces a needless internal battle that would have still likely occurred had this issue been debated months earlier but possibly with less vitriol.
Part of the challenge with any constitution regardless of whom or what it governs is that constitutions are static documents written in a time and place that may not have foreseen or adequately considered every possible future development.
It’s partly why governments occasionally pass legislation that some claim may be unconstitutional in the hope that the Supreme Court will side with the legislators if asked. Sometimes the government is right and sometimes they have to go back to the drafting board.
For the Green party, the question boils down to: what to do when that static document runs up against realpolitik, as it has on the leadership question?
Ideally, the powers that be would have identified this potential issue early on and called for member input to chart a course of action. Certainly, the potential for this issue to turn into a calamity should have been expected by insiders.
Resolving the leadership selection process is not just about the current leader, but future leaders as well. What’s good for one must be good for all. This is not an issue where the party should keep changing its policy depending upon the popularity or level of criticism of a leader at any given point in time.
It’s why the crisis mode approach to the issue is so wrong. But sometimes the circumstances to even self-created crises can’t be altered.
So effectively, there’s only one question before members in August: what is in the best interests of the party not only for today, but also ten years down the road? Because no matter the bluster from all sides this is not about the current leader or Sylvie Lemieux.
It’s solely about what is in the best political interests of the Green party. And a process that takes into account political events that are outside of the party’s control needs to be an integral component of the leadership selection process going forward.
But party members may very well decide that for the Green party realpolitik means four-year terms for leader. So be it, but they will at least make that decision in the context of current political realities.
One piece of good news in all of this, however, is that Lemieux is a woman and will help put to rest the spurious whispering that all the critics to the leader are ‘redneck misogynists.’ Lemieux, of course, is the recently announced candidate for the top Green job.
There’s another potential upside to this mess. It’s not often that you get a second chance to fix a grievous error. The current leader who failed in 2006 at uniting the party may be given one more chance.
Here’s hoping that she will seize this unprecedented opportunity.
Going forward, the party leadership should be composed of the various views that are so strongly held among party ranks. It may make decision making more challenging and more exciting, but given current circumstances it’s also the right thing to do.
From deputy leaders to Council to shadow advocates to staff, the party desperately needs to be better reflected in its whole at all levels if the healing is to be for real. Call it coalition governing.
And paraphrasing Lesley Gore, you can cry if you want to, but it’s not your party.
It belongs to the members. And it’s high time to heal needless and sometimes purposefully inflicted wounds.
Dermod Travis is former Director of Communications for the Green Party of Canada and organized the Green Party's 2006 National Convention
Comments
GPC Observer
Travis writes:
One piece of good news in all of this, however, is that Lemieux is a woman and will help put to rest the spurious whispering that all the critics to the leader are ‘redneck misogynists.’
GPC observer replies:
Or could it be an equally likely scenario (IMHO), that the leader's critics chose Lemieux as their stalking horse, because she would blunt (justified, IMHO) criticism that they attack GPC leadership because they're sexist.
Travis replies
The problem with this argument, of course, is that it may or may not be true as it applies to any specific member whereas the criticism itself may be valid. Address the criticism rather than the critic.
The Green party is nothing if not composed of many members (both male and female) with strong opinions who choose to voice those opinions in various ways. It’s inappropriate to dismiss valid criticism by simply sticking a label on the critic.
Former leader Jim Harris had his fair share of critics as well, many of whom were men. I doubt Jim would have labeled them sexist.
As the party is open to both genders, it’s only natural that some of the criticism will come from men.
Equally, I doubt Lemieux would allow herself to be used as a stalking horse for any group and she may find such an implication insulting.
GPC Observer hatches new conspiracy theory
GPC observers `theory` ranks up there with 9/11 zionist conspiracy theories, and the CIA killed Kennedy. But why not spread poison? It has proven an effective tactic in the past. Clearly GPC Observer did NOT read Dermods article beyond scanning for a hook to hang this sleazy attack on.
I have met Sylvie many times, and to imply that she is some kind of weak kneed patsy for sinister chauvenistic forces is utterly laughable! Do you think the first woman to reach the rank of Lt. Colonel in the armed forces does not have pretty sensitive 'antennae' for detecting chauvenists? Her entire professional career has been spent battling, and transforming two of the most chauvenistic, and paternalistic professions in Canada.
Sylvie's is one of the first woman graduates from the famous Ecole Polytechnique engineering school in Montreal. Sylvie was the very first woman to reach the rank of Lt. Colonel in a combat branch of the Armed Forces. And now you want to imply that she is some kind of shill for dark chauvenist forces? BULL, she is a genuine pioneer, and a role model for thousands of women officers, and engineers across the country, and this perverse implication is simply vile. Exactly what I would expect from the same people who vilified David Chernushenko during the last Leadership race.
GPC Observer
Thanks for the reply Dermod and for a response that stylistically could only come from one Matthew Day!
Matthew, I read the article, but I've got to admit that Dermod's reference to "redneck mysogynists" jumped out at me. And I thought, now why would one include that in the article? It's not like it was needed to support the general thrust of the piece.
Got me thinking about how the concerted blog campaign to oust May is primarily composed of men. Men who seem to unable to accept that Elizabeth May has grown the GPCs vote and has twice scored among the very best all-time results of any Global Greens running for election in single-member districts. Men who don't seem to realize that Jack Layton's political highlight of the week was Sylvie Lemieux on Power & Politics.
Finally, I'm not even a GPC member, I'm just someone very interested in party politics and how the Internet is used therein. And I'd hope we can all agree that the contemporary GPC is notable in that regard, because even a pitiable leader like Stephane Dion never had to put up with the crap Elizabeth does.
Solution Suggested
Dermod:
Good post. It got me thinking and I've written a blog post suggesting a way out of this mess. See it at: http://greenparty.ca/en/blog/1099
Travis replies Part 2
GPC Observer you’re right that line does stand out and I reflected for some time about including it, but felt the point needed to be made.
I’ve heard the whispering directed at various members for some time and believe it does absolutely nothing to try and unite what has historically been a fractious party.
I’ve been involved in the Québec debate for many years (language and constitution) and often decried the throwing about of labels willy nilly as a means to discredit an opponent.
I don’t believe it’s healthy and once suggested (tongue firmly planted in cheek) that Québec have a national day of denunciation where all those who like to throw labels about could meet at the Big O, denounce each other for 24 hours and for the other 364 days get back to debating the merits of the various POVs.
Frankly, for the party the bigger problem is not IMHO the gender of the critic, but the means of two-way feedback available in the party. And this goes back to 2004.
If a member has a different point of view but feels there’s no way to adequately express it, chances are they will take to blogs.
If the majority of those bloggers happen to be men, so be it. It’s the luck of the draw, but I don’t believe the leadership of any party should try to draw any further conclusion from that reality least of all express it in quasi-public forums.
That "misogynist" tag is getting real old
When Mark Taylor and I resigned from federal council in 2008, we did so for a variety of reasons. Geeky governance issues, personal feuds, all good clean political fun.
After we left, the word was spread privately that we had left not because we had substantive issues, but because we were unsupportive of women in positions of power. That's a very low blow.
When the Greens were initially blocked from the campaign debates, that same argument was trotted out. It's a damn convenient argument, and very versatile.
But it's a lie, more often than not.
John Ogilvie
Travis on the Hulet proposal
Bill Hulet has put forward an interesting compromise proposal to the mess that the party is now facing over various competing leadership motions for the biannual meeting. See:
http://greenparty.ca/en/blog/1099
Regardless of your POV, this is – to the best of my knowledge – the first real attempt at trying to find a consensual way to steer through what promises to be a lively (read: ‘not healthy for party unity’) debate.
It would behoove the party’s rank and file, party elders and the leadership to seize the idea of finding such a compromise before the biannual meeting; a compromise motion that will rally the largest possible number of members.
Here’s hoping.
Perhaps this is close enough ...
The difficulty with the Hulet Proposal is it can easily be ignored due to procedural roadblocks, since a Motion is not already submitted. The Emergency Motion Procedure could be used.
However, there is already a Motion, properly submitted and already being voted on.
http://greenparty.ca/motion/G10-c12
Motion Preamble:
WHEREAS the Leadership Term is specified in Bylaw 2.1.4.2 and from time to time circumstances, such as an expected imminent Federal General Election, or a Leadership Contest interrupted by a Federal General Election may make it desirable or even necessary to extend the Leader's term in order to have an elected Leader in office. Therefore:
Motion Operative:
BE IT RESOLVED that: Bylaw 2.1.4.5 be amended to read: Federal Council or the Members may extend the Leader's term one time per term to end at the completion of a Leadership Contest, said Leadership Contest to last not longer than 6 months and to be started not later than 8 weeks after voting day of the next General Election.
---
Perhaps this is close enough to the Hulet Proposal to be the vehicle used to achieve the Hulet objective.
Rob Brooks
Procedural Problems at GPC Conventions: Bill Hulet
Rob:
I think your post just illustrates why our current way of dealing with resolutions is so dangerous to the party. I don't know if your read of the process is right or not---my feeling is that the conference organizers largely make this stuff as they go along. But the attitude amongst many people is that the on-line discussion and voting pretty much tie the hands of the people attending conventions to the point where they simply cannot negotiate significant compromises between different factions.
Need I point out that THAT IS AN F***ING INSANE WAY TO RUN A POLITICAL PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It, in effect, ties the hands of anyone who wants to build consensus and hands a loaded revolver to anyone who holds a grudge.
My post was about outlining some ideas and getting the key people involved talking about creating a compromise that they could work out in the workshops at the convention. (Ideally, the key people would work this stuff out before the convention and unveil it there.)
If people want to use the resolution you mentioned, fine. But I suggested in my blog that there are other issues that need to be addressed too. One is the attitude by the Council that they do not have to abide by the spirit of the Constitution, or defend it. Instead, there is the attitude that the Council "owns" the party and it can igore the constitution and what happens at conventions whenever it wants to. This is a very dangerous tendency and needs to be addressed through something like a public apology.
Secondly, there is also the issue of building EDAs versus developing a centralized, leader-driven electoral strategy. My suggestion of a Blue-ribbon committee of Greens with a proved ability to build the grass roots would address that issue.
Neither of these two issues requires a resolution, just a decision by Council to do so. If a directive was passed that mandated them, my past experience indicates that the directives would be either ignored or sabotaged in the implementation. That is why I specifically asked the Leader to buy into both of these ideas and use her personal influence to see them implemented.
I see both of these issues as just as important for healing wounds in the GPC. If the resolution you suggest passes, it in itself will not deal with these other issues---which I think are just as important to healing the breech of trust that many of our hardest working members feel has taken place.
3 Resolutions Offered - One Solution Needed
I too believe we can solve our problems. Ultimately we should try to all agree on a good solution for the party. To do this means being generaous and not driven by personal ambition or blind loyaties. These things, ambition and loyalty, must be checked at the door before entering the room where consensus is sought.
Instead of pointing fingers we have to join hands. I'm willing.
Rob Brooks
A proposal
Perhaps it might be advisable to contact all of the individuals who have sponsored the various resolutions on the leadership issue to attempt to work out a compromise and, if successful, ask the various sponsors to then withdraw their motions before the convention in favour of the jointly sponsored compromise motion to be presented at the convention and later ratified by members (if required).
Not every sponsor will need to agree, just a sufficient number to render the original motion(s) moot due to a lack of sufficient sponsors if some sponsors are unwilling to withdraw.
Yes, unorthodox. But this entire situation is nothing if not unorthodox.
Dermod
Dermod's Absolutely Right
Yes indeed, someone needs to work the phones and bring these people together. They should talk together and probably get together at least the day before the conference to work out a compromise solution.
I certainly am not the person to do it, as I am absolutely hated by various members of the party. (That's why I'm not even going to the conference.) Is there anyone out there who wants to eat the guano?
Bill Hulet
Honest broker needed
What Dermod suggests is possible with an honest and disinterested broker to do the contacting.
Rob Brooks
Suggestion: drop the apology
1) Leadership race - not review - every five years. Love it. Differentiates GPC from other parties, shows commitment to grassroots, and dynamism.
2) Green Elders council writing a report on encouraging EDA formation. "A worthwhile Canadian Initiative". I would prefer a more action oriented plan. Mark Taylor once suggested that GPC regional organizers (remember them?) should earn their salary as a percentage of the funds raised by the EDAs they are responsible for supporting.
Public apology by leadership?
1) It ain't gonna happen. 2) If it did, nobody would care. This leadership is on the way out, apologies are unnecessary.
John Ogilvie
It's not a resolution, it's a list of suggestions----
John:
The thing about what I posted is that it isn't a resolution, it's a set of suggestions for a possible compromise. If someone wants to take the ball and run with it, they can drop whatever they want. But I would suggest that there does need to be a change of attitude by everyone involved with Federal Council. Part of their job should be to defend the constitution and the rights of the membership as expressed in convention. Up until now, the attitude has been that the party belongs to Council and they can do whatever they please. As long as that attitude exists there are going to be problems.
Bill Hulet
Post new comment