Democratic Debilitation through Deal-Making and Discipline
I am sure we all agree that there are many things problematic with political parties in Canada. But, I would argue that two of the most democratically debilitating are party discipline and deal-making. Both involve top-down control and the destruction of political and ideological diversity within a political party. I hope we Young Greens can work hard to prevent both of them from taking root within the Green Party of Canada.
Party discipline takes place when the leadership of a party dictates to their candidates how they will present certain policies in an election and informs their members of Parliament how they are required to vote in the House of Commons. Simply put, the problem with this common practice is that it does not allow members of Parliament to vote in the House of Commons according to the wishes of their constituents. So, the people who elected her/him are no longer represented.
Deal-making takes place when the party leadership agrees to run a really lousy candidate (a “cannon-fodder candidate”) in a certain riding in exchange for a rival party running a poor candidate in another riding. For example, the NDP leadership could agree to run a poor candidate in a place where the Liberals had a good chance of beating the Conservatives in exchange for the Liberal leadership agreeing to run a poor candidate in a place where the NDP had a good chance of beating the Conservatives.
Both of these practices are common within Canadian politics because they can effectively bring about short-term political gain. However, both of these practices also stifle policy debates and suppress diversity of opinion and, therefore, are do significant damage to our democracy.
Notice that deal-making involves the leadership of the party deciding what candidate will represent the party in a specific riding. Notice also that deal-making leads quite naturally into strict party discipline. When a deal is made between the top strategists of two parties, the citizens of the constituency in question are simply told who will “represent” them. And, as a result, their so-called representative (if elected) is sent to Ottawa without a strong backing from the local party and is unable to stand up against the discipline of the party leadership. If a member of Parliament is to do more than simply tow the party line as dictated to her from the party leadership, she must have actually been chosen to represent her constituents.
For us Greens, both grassroots democracy and diversity are important and foundational principles in our politic. And, one of the best ways to have political diversity is to ensure that all candidates are freely chosen by the Green Party membership at the local level rather than selected by the party leadership. Simply put, deal-making is a practice that centralizes parties and creates top-down structures that are disturbingly destructive of diversity and devastatingly un-democratic.
At the 2006 Green Party Convention last August, a resolution came forward that sought to allow the leadership of the Party to make deals with the other parties. This resolution suggested that the Green Party leadership be given the authority to withdraw a candidate regardless of wishes of the local membership. I am happy to say that this resolution was defeated and that the Green Party membership demonstrated its commitment to the value of political diversity in representative democracy. I am sad to say that this has been, and continues to be, a debate within our Party.
I am confident that the debate over deal-making will become more pronounced as our party continues to grow. I sincerely hope that we Young Greens, more than anyone in the Party, will remember the importance of free and local representation in the development of political diversity. Indeed, I hope that we will get involved in our local Green Party organizations and help nominate Green Party candidates to represent us.
- Jared Giesbrecht's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Party consistency is the raison d'etre for parties
Hey, Jared. I'm not sure I agree with you on the whole party thing. I think that people choose a party specifically because they act as a team around common values and beliefs. I think that people want party "discipline" in that they expect a party to support a particular agenda that is consonant with the party values. Otherwise, we might as well be a bunch of independents. Which, of course, may be preferable, except that the ridings are so large that an independent only has a snowball's chance when they are a media celebrity, which is not necessarily a good qualification for running a country.
I also disagree with you about deals, as I have outlined in my blog 'The Art of the Deal' at http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/1053 . I do not think they are "common" in Canada, and I think that a judicious use of this in one or two ridings in one election could advance the Green cause dramatically.
I agree with you that you never want to undermine the wishes of a local EDA. However, there are 100+ ridings in Canada which do not have an EDA, and until they step up to the plate and register, they cannot nominate a candidate. Democracy is determined by who shows up, and if the GPC is responsible for finding a candidate for these ridings, then it is most certainly empowered (in my opinion) to choose to not run a candidate as well.
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Party Discipline and Consistency
Jim, I agree that some level of consistency is a big part of what a party is/does. My point was primarily about HOW we get to that kind of consistency.
Also, I wanted to note the connection between a lack of respect for EDA's and strict party discipline in the House of Commons. For example, Liberal MP's will have trouble resisting the whip of the Liberal Party because many of them (especially under Chretien) have not received backing from a local EDA--they were simply appointed to run in certain ridings.
You make a good point about deals--we should not make deals that undermines in any way the local Green EDA (or, for that matter, the EDA of the Party with whom we are dealing). But, as you note, there are a lot of ridings that do not have Green EDA's. I don't see a lot of problems with dealing in parachute candidates...
Dealing for Democracy
In Canada we have a situation where a party can, and often does, obtain a majority in the House of Commons while obtaining far less than half of the popular vote. Not especially democratic. Stephen Harper might get his majority come the next federal election, and therefore not implement Kyoto, despite the fact that more than half of all Canadians would have cast pro-Kyoto votes. Again, not especially democratic. If, on the other hand, the Liberals, New Democrats and all of the other parties too, decided to run only one candidate between them in any riding where Harper would otherwise have a chance to come up the middle, democracy, it seems to me, would be best served. And plenty of deals would be required. Until we move to proportional representation, we will be more democratic with deals, than without them.
Deal making
It seems to me that you folks are confused about the purpose of having a political party in the first place. A political party that has gone to the trouble of registering itself and fundraising and creating a platform, running candidates, etc, should never contemplate making deals with othe parties - not in Canada, anyways, as we don't have the option of coalition governments or other kinds of power sharing.
A political party has a simple mission - present an alternative, try to elect MPs, advocate its preferred views on the big issues of the day. Everything else is fluff. Until the GPC learns to behave like a bona fide political party within the Canadian context, we are bound to appear like a bunch of self-absorbed amateurs and definitely not ready for prime time.
You can tell I am highly skeptical of deal-making with anyone, especially the Liberals. Having worked with that particular organization within the House of Commons, I can tell you the Liberals will just absorb you and whatever else you bring in their general direction. It's an amorphous party of the centre, but one with a huge history, big line-up of wealthy supporters and much tradition of governing. The GPC is viewed in the Liberals' camp like a pesky, if likeable, newcomer, and as an entity whose members are just Liberals waiting to "see the light". A sorry state of affairs, but that's the way it is.
Jan T
Parties do not run weak candidates deliberately.
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
Leaders have no history of appointing a weak candidate in exchange for similar treatment. They have a history of appointing a candidate who will support the leader in the House in preference to one who would be a thorn in the leader's side, or who is likely to say things that would destroy party credibility accross the country.
If there is deal making , it can be done by having a prominent person like Buz Hargrove come along to ditch the NDP candidate in favour of the Liberal, as was the case in London North Centre, and in our own Riding in Jan 06. This will not be seen as deal making because it appears to come from outside of the party.
Greens are most likely to be enticed by other Greens to join them in bolting from voting Green to prevent a conservative win. Well, we did not see that in London North Centre, but we did see early in the campaign a lot of NDP activists trying to swing Green votes away from Green to prevent a Conservative win. The problem here is that there is no quid pro quo... nowhere is any NDP working to get NDP voters to swing to Green.
Only deeply divided ridings can be swung by having individual voters encouraged to vote strategically.
What can change the tide is for a candidate to publicly withdraw before voting starts, with a request that supporters vote a given way. This is the situation in which deal making could be effective, but only if there are Green candidates within striking distance of winning.
If our own polling suggests that we are far from winning in several ridings, and within striking distance of a victory in one, a deal that has candidates bow out with a recommendation, and preferably a bit of campaigning, presents an opportunity. But we should not use pre-campaign polling numbers to make those decisions. We need to go at the election with the intent to win, and only if our polls show we are not improving enough to maybe win should we even consider a deal.
By the way, there will be many Liberal candidates we should oppose regardless of party name. We should not ask voters to support a Liberal candidate who will not support Green objectives, ever.