Why I am Standing as a Nomination Candidate
By Stuart Hertzog
August 22nd, 2009
For the Green Party of Canada In Saanich-Gulf Islands
“We need a different kind of politics… a participatory democracy”
photo by Peter Rockwell
Stuart Hertzog is a writer, editor, and publication designer, and an active environment and social justice advocate. He has worked on many environmental campaigns, including waste incineration, municipal recycling, air pollution, energy, and on maintaining the moratorium on BC offshore oil and gas development. He has been involved with the Green Party since 1984 and has run as a provincial candidate three times, once for the BC NDP in 1991 as part of the NDP Green Caucus, then twice for the BC Green Party, in 1995 and 2001.
Stuart believes that the primary task of the Green Party is not to just to talk about the environment, but to defend and develop Democracy. He is concerned that Canada’s Green parties have drifted away from their fundamental Green political principles in their drive for political power. They have centralised party decision-making processes into the hands of the central council and the leader, alienating grassroots green activists and undermining their membership base.
“We need a different kind of politics to tackle the major issues of world peace, economic justice, pollution, and climate change,” he says. “We must create a citizen-based, Green democracy as the foundation of a compassionate and eco-centric society, for the protection and prosperity of all that lives. This democratic revitalisation must begin within our own Green political parties,” Stuart concludes. “We must begin at home.”
An environmental and social justice activist
My name is Stuart Hertzog. I am a writer, editor, and publication designer. I have been involved with the Green Party since 1984, in Alberta and BC. I’m also a long-time environment and social justice advocate, my main focus since moving to Vancouver in 1988 to work for Greenpeace Canada.
In 1989 I ran a successful Greenpeace campaign to prevent a toxic waste incinerator from being built on the Seagull Indian band reserve near Hope in the lower mainland. This project would have created toxic ash and spewed dioxins and other pollutants into the airshed of the upper Fraser Valley. As a result of this campaign, no toxic waste incinerators have been built in the Fraser Valley.
I then set up Citizens Action Network (CAN), a grassroots citizens environmental group focussed on urban pollution. CAN was able to prevent then Vancouver mayor Gordon Campbell from permitting a garbage processing plant to be built on Terminal Avenue in Vancouver, against the wishes of local residents.
Campbell’s garbage-mashing plant would have allowed people to continue to throw recyclables into their trash, resulting in a low-grade product good only for burning in pellet stoves. These in turn would act as multiple point sources of air pollution and leave toxic ashes. As a result of this success, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) moved to adopt blue-box recycling, which we agreed to only on the basis that it would begin to educate people on the necessity of reducing and reusing their household waste.
So I can claim the rare distinction of having fought Gordon Campbell—and won!
I then sat on the GVRD’s Air Quality Advisory Committee; was an Intervener to a BC Utilities Commission hearing; and a member of the Burrard Task Force examining the operation of the Burrard thermal generating plant, the largest single source of air pollution on the Lower Mainland. I have been focussed on energy issues, including preventing BC offshore oil and gas development.
In recent years I have taken on social justice issues with Faith In Action, a non-denominational, faith-based social action group based in Victoria (I am a practicing Buddhist). I am now setting up the Vancouver Island Subsidised Housing Tenants Association (VISHTA) to advocate for administrative justice, tenant rights, and respectful treatment of residents of public and private subsidised housing for seniors and people in need. This campaign is ongoing.
Three-time Green political candidate
I first became politically active when I joined the Green Party in Alberta in 1983. At that time there were very few active Greens in Alberta. I realised that those few of us, including myself, were too naïeve and inexperienced. I needed to learn about politics, so I joined the Alberta NDP. When I moved to BC I became active with the Green Caucus of the BCNDP, and was also an active member of the BCNDP’s Standing Committee on the Environment.
The Green Caucus played a large part in trying to push the BCNDP towards green policies, particularly on logging in the Carmanah Valley. But the industrial unions in the NDP were anti-environmentalist, and after running as a candidate for the NDP in Vancouver-Quilchena in 1991, when I came in second, the victorious BCNDP under the leadership of Mike Harcourt essentially pushed the Green Caucus out of the party. Glen Clark, the next NDP BC Premier, was even worse. Clark declared environmentalists “enemies of BC.”
Having learned something about politics, I rejoined the BC Green Party in 1996 and ran as a parachute candidate in Bulkley Valley Stikine, enabling just 151 local people to vote Green. That experience convinced me that parachute candidates simply don’t work. A person has to live for some time in a city or bioregion to understand its social ecology. You need a sense of ‘place’ to go beyond human-centric environmentalism.
I then ran as the Green Party candidate in Victoria-Hillside in 2001, at which time I received 19.82% of the vote. I had to set up the Victoria-Hillside Green Party constituency association to do this, which I did single-handedly. I received no help from the party’s central office for my Hillside campaign, as the majority of its efforts were being directed towards leader Adriane Carr’s unsuccessful bid for election on the Sunshine Coast. Only the miraculous appearance of few willing volunteers prevented me from bailing out in the middle of this campaign.
This experience gave me my first insight into the Green Party’s growing lack of support for its grassroots membership. It lead me to the conviction that Green parties must be reminded of their political and philosophic origins, which is why I set up greenpolitics.ca, and why am now standing as a nomination candidate.
Back to Green principles
I am standing as a Green party nomination candidate for Saanich Gulf Islands because I believe deeply in the Green principles on which all Green parties are based―or should be. These have been written down in many ways, but they can be reduced to the four basic principles or pillars of Green politics:
- Peace and non-violence based on Acceptance
- Social Justice, which is based on Equality
- Eco-centrism (biocentrism) based on Interdependence
- Participatory Democracy based on Respect
All of these are important, but primary among them for any Green political party is the Green principle of participatory democracy. This means that everyone affected by a policy, law, or project must have a vote in deciding that issue. “Top-down” processes directed by an autocratic government, making decisions behind closed doors, are not participatory. Canada’s Westminster-style parliament is far from being democratic.
It may seem strange to make the achievement of participatory democracy―genuine democracy―as the primary goal of Green politics. Isn’t the Green Party the party of the environment? I believe this view is incorrect, and that the Green Party has misunderstood its mission in the Canadian political arena. The environmental movement deals with environmental issues; the Green Party’s primary mission is Democracy.
I came to this conclusion only after years of working on environmental issues. We won campaigns by taking our fight to the court of public opinion. We gave people the facts, and they agreed with us. Politicians backed down as soon as public opinion swung against them. Those campaigns we lost were never resolved in public view. Secret decisions were made behind closed doors, in cabinet or at private meetings with corporate CEOs and lobbyists.
Because our political system is not truly democratic, once these agreements have been struck, prime ministers and premiers simply issued legislation or Orders In Council to ‘make it so.’ Public opinion didn’t affect those decisions.
Our parliamentary party system is dysfunctional in many other ways. Power to represent their constituents has been removed from MPs and MLAs. Ministerial responsibility has been reduced to an empty tradition. Prime ministers and premiers have politicised the civil service. Party leaders act like dictators within their own party, reducing candidates and even elected caucus to “yes” people.
Anti-democratic centralism
Unfortunately, the same tendency towards anti-democratic centralisation has become dominant in Canada’s Green parties. As they drifted away from their Green political foundations, they have forsaken grassroots Green bioregional activism. Their focus now is exclusively on the inner machinations of federal council, and the loyal court of supporters surrounding the leader.
Perhaps this is in the nature of human beings. Certainly, history tells us that after the idealistic stage of a political revolution, those with a need for power soon move to repress ‘dissenters.’ But grassroots Green politics is not about disempowerment; Green politics is about respect and empowerment.
Federal council has defined its goal for the coming election as to get just one Green MP elected, namely Elizabeth May, the current leader. They believe that the Green Party won’t be effective until it can belly up to the negotiating table and become part of the anti-democratic, secret deal-making process.
I believe that they are wrong. For a start, the ‘leader’ of a Green Party is supposed to be a spokesperson, not a dictator. The cult of leadership and its promotion by the corporate media is not Green. I believe that getting the leader of the Green Party elected won’t change anything, except to guarantee the flow of funds to central party coffers and reduce the Green party to being seen as just another bunch of untrustworthy politicians that make self-serving deals.
There is already enough public distrust of the current political process, especially by young voters. We don’t need more wannabe politicians saying “Vote for me, I’ll fix everything.” People know that promise is not authentic.
By desperately trying to become a mainstream political party, Green parties are in danger of losing their vision, and soul. It has been said that: “Without vision, the people perish.” I say that without principles, politics is an empty charade.
A different kind of politics
The old way of doing things is not going to help us overcome the major challenges facing us today. With others, I began warning about global warming in the early 1980s. Almost thirty years later, the world’s politicians have failed to halt the growth of greenhouse gases. All they can do is talk.
We need a different kind of politics, a politics of involvement and respect, to tackle the major issues of world peace, economic justice, pollution, and climate change. Imitating conventional political parties isn’t going to save us.
In 1985, I presented a discussion paper to the Founding Convention of the Green party of Canada, in Oliver, BC. Called Distributed Democracy, it described exactly the same of bioregional, grassroots structure that I am still promoting as a truly Green democratic model for both the Green Party and for Canada.
Out of fear and close-mindedness, the Greens present chose not to adopt this forward-looking structure. Instead, the Green Party of Canada was set up along the same top-down, hierarchical lines as other conventional political parties.
Green politics is different
Genuine Green politics is truly different. Green parties were conceived as offering an alternative to the undemocratic centralisation of power in a political system that was designed to preserve the rule of the aristocracy and the might of the British Empire. Now, it serves CEOs and the money men, who prosper from a selfish and rapacious industrial economy that impoverishes people even as it destroys species and ecosystems. We must halt their destructive greed.
We need a new kind of politics―a grassroots, community-based, participatory democracy, and an eco-centric and life-affirming social culture―to overcome the currently destructive focus on economic growth, with its over-production of material goods that generates a ‘wealth’ that flows directly to the already rich.
Please join with me in this task
We are faced with a conundrum that “politics as usual” isn’t going to solve. This entire planet and especially those humans and other living creatures being exploited by greedy global corporatism, is crying out for we humans to adopt an eco-centric and democratic Green politics.
I believe that only a truly Green political party that practices what it preaches, can offer an alternative to dysfunctional conventional politics. Parchuting the leader of the Green Party into a foreign bioregion and pouring in the money, will not change Canadian politics by one iota.
This is why I am standing as a nomination candidate for Saanich-Gulf Islands, in my Island bioregion. I ask you to join me in the great task of creating a Green, citizen-based democracy, and a compassionate and eco-centric society, for the protection and prosperity of all that lives.
Stuart Hertzog,
Victoria, BC
August 20, 2009
Posted in Canada, Green parties, Green politics, democracy | 177 Comments »
Bravo! Any Green who can squeeze the political notion of “bioregion” and “foreign” into one statement against Elizabeth “My-Heart-is-Everywhere” May has my support. I am prepared to offer as much support as I can.
Greetings from Novacadia,
Sebastian Ronin, GPNS Leadership Candidate
Thanks, Sebastian. And good luck to you in your bid to become leader of the Green Party of Nova Scotia.
Stuart, as a Novacadian to a Cascadian, may it not finally be time to massage the political notion of “Cascadia” into West Coast “Green” political discourse? The time is ripe for a major rupture, a shattering of the mold, a stepping over personal Rubicons, and then not looking back. Do the right thing, IMO, and the consequences look after themselves.
Should the media wish to flirt with this little Green adventure in Nova Scotia, then the GPC (as it exists in the public psyche) becomes flanked. Think about it.
You have made my day with your announcement. Best of luck. (I have been waiting 25 years for this particular intersection of time and space, ecological, geological, economic, financial, political, geopolitical, etc. You’ll have to excuse me if I am somewhat exhuberant.) Later.
North America naturally communicates north-south rather than east-west, and both the US and Canada are unnatural in this regard. There is a correspondence between Oregon, Washington and BC in that they share ecological and social similarities and form a recognisable bioregion.
While I support the notion of Cascadia in broad outline, how this comes about is not yet clear. Certainly, neither the Canada or America would allow Cascadia, Novarcadia or any other self-declared bioregion to declare independence without a fight, hopefully only a war of words.
Perhaps the need to become locally self-sufficient as the global food distribution network breaks down under the impact of climate change and escalating fuel costs, would bring about a natural development of a sustainable bioregional system of governance.
Green politics may be forced upon us all out of necessity, rather than by design.
Stuart, re “Green politics may be forced upon us all out of necessity, rather than by design.”
This is close to my notion of “secession-by-default.” Post-Peak Oil trumps climate chaos by several decades. I no longer think in terms of “Green,” but in terms of “post-Green.” You are a busy man right now with many priorities, but should you find the time:
Post-Peak Oil and NAmerican Regional Secession
Goodness! If Elizabeth May wanted nothing more than “political power” why in the world would she bother running for the Greens. Why not run as a Liberal? As Stuart has mentioned, and as we all know, Ms. May is right smart and she’s got tons of hustle. If she wanted to run Liberal she could, no problem. So get a grip people and give credit where it’s due. That doesn’t mean I don’t wish you luck Stuart. Politics is only for the ultra brave!
Thanks, Christine! But I think Ms. May found it easier to take over the Green Party than join the Liberals and fight her way through the ranks. And she may not entirely agree with the Liberal philosophy. Remember, she started off her political career working for Brian Mulroney.
“Parchuting [sic] the leader of the Green Party into a foreign bioregion and pouring in the money, will not change Canadian politics by one iota.”
Stuart,
How would having yourself as the local candidate “change Canadian politics by one iota”?
By taking a brave public stance, your preferred emphases can come to the fore, which could be salutary, and it is to be doubted any Green, unless they have personal reasons, would think your challenge is totally misplaced. But I from my distance am concerned that there might be some untenable expectations about national politics altogether that provoke your actions & remarks.
May I ask you, were you born in your immediate region? I understand that there is a somewhat enhanced possibility for Greens in that very riding for its being peopled in large part by “foreigners”.
Daryl Vernon
feeling like a refugee in York Centre
Thanks for the heads-up, Daryl, about the spelling mistake. I’ve corrected it. My error does show that spelling checkers are not infallible. Parachutes of all kinds also have been known to fail.
On the issue of residency, Only First Nations people can really claim to be from this place, although there is some evidence that even their ancestors may have migrated from Asia millennia ago. All others living in Canada are essentially “foreigners,” and I am always aware of that fact. I was born in Manchester, England; this is my home now. Elizabeth May was born in America and lives in the Maritimes.
I did expect more of a reply than that, than stating the obvious, and not speaking to other concerns. I don’t know if you are aware of my own copious writing for Greens, & others interested, mainly on the GPC blogsite. For some of what I take to be your “emphases”, as I put it, I think you’d find in me an ally. But I am concerned about your perception about national politics altogether, apparently prompting your candidacy in the main, and would welcome a discussion (although I might delay a few days in responding).
Get overyourself, Stuart. The objective is to take out Lunn. You don’t stand a chance. Elizabeth does.
And getting the party leader elected should be a priority. Personally, I think she should join the Liberals and leave you whiners behind in the dust.
Jan, to me there is a higher objective than defeating Gary Lunn, and that is the issue of the nature and development of our democracy, which I believe is being seriously undermined at this time. It has been said that the price of democracy is constant vigilance, and I’m afraid that the Green Party has forgotten this in its rush for power.
Dumping the “leader” of a party that espouses participatory democracy into a foreign riding by fiat of a central committee, to me goes against the very purpose of the Green Party, which is to offer a grassroots, non-hierarchical model of democratic process.
And there is no guarantee that if chosen as candidate, Elizabeth May will win in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Both the Liberals and the NDP are going to be putting up candidates, and the Conservatives certainly aren’t going to roll over and play dead.
The heck you say, Jan! I’m a ‘soft’ Green supporter, having donated both $ and lawn space in the past;the one good thing I’ll say about Lunn is that he’s a long-time resident of the community. How on earth is Ms. May going to represent me when she needs a map to find her way around? Parachuting worked well for both Churchill and Tommy Douglas – Ms. May is neither.
Stuart, you have answered my prayers! I have been hoping that local Greens would not roll over for Ms. May. She is the reason we stopped voting Green. You are absolutely bang-on with your reasoning and stand on the issues. Where do I send the campaign donation?
Thanks, Linda. I’m gratified that my views are shared by yourself and others. As for donations, as I haven’t yet been declared the official Green Party candidate, I can’t solicit funds at this time. The nomination meeting is scheduled for 2p.m. on September 19th at the Mary Winspear Centre in Sidney, BC.
indeed I have always seen the GP as a social democratic civil liberties organization and May is simply the anti-green.
When I got here “What I did this summer” from he Green Party I almost hurled it was so disgustingly just a cult of personality.
May is gross and mistaken and needs to go as “leader” – until then I am anything but Green in my riding – she is twisted and vain in her search for power and glory.
The Libs or NDp will be getting my vote instead in Vancouver.
Democracy yes, no special privileges for groups even your own relgion my friend, eh – be clear because we already have too many wooly-headed unelectable folks who wish to impose their religious views on all of us no matter how sincere you “believe”.
Thanks for your comment, Michael. I’m not so sure that Elizabeth May is actually anti-Green. I see her as a light Green conservative environmentalist who does not yet fully understand the implications of Green political philosophy. But she’s an intelligent and articulate person and a quick study, and I hope she can be informed.
You are right about the cult of personality, which is an albatross hung around the neck of anyone declared leader of a Canadian political party by the mainstream media, and which she does exploit to her advantage. Perhaps her long-term goal is to become a Senator?
The leader of the Green Party is supposed to be only a spokesperson, not an autocrat. I suggest that the party rename it to exactly that, ensuring that any future Green spokesperson can never behave in the same dictatorial manner as the current Canadian prime minister and his predecessors.
On religious views, I’m personally disturbed by the suggested connection between prime minister Stephen Harper and the US religious right. As a Buddhist, I don’t try to impose my philosophical views on anyone. Here, we are talking about political philosophy. In my view, religion and the state should be kept far apart.
Now that your challenge is national news (nationalnewswatch.com), I suspect that Elizabeth May will try to charm you, then bribe you, perhaps with a position on her staff should she win. Failing that, she will then threaten, then try to destroy you if you don’t knuckle under to her dictatorial plans.
Since Elizabeth May does not know your riding, the local people or the local issues, many potential Green voters will rightfully see her candidacy in Saanich-Gulf Islands as the crass, self-centred power play that it is. Many will reject her bid on that basis and either vote against her or simply stay at home on election day.
A recent example of how parachuting fails was the former Ontario PC leader John Tory’s failed bid to get elected in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock last March after convincing the popular sitting PC MPP Laurie Scott to resign so that he could contest the seat. David Docherty, dean of arts and a professor of political science at Wilfrid Laurier University had this to say about John Tory’s antics in Canada.com on March 6, 2009: “This time, he chooses a safe Conservative riding and all of sudden everyone there is thinking: ‘What are we, a drive-thru?’ ”
Smart people will take John Tory’s sorry political story as a lesson in local politics, but Elizabeth May has dropped from the sky into various ridings so often that she may have received too many bounces to have any sense left.
You’re the David in this Goliath story. Don’t give up your fight or your principles.
Thanks for the support, and the pointer to National Newswatch. I shall remain alert for any attempt by Elizabeth May to charm or bribe me to stand down.
You’re absolutely right about the negative image of a leader of the Green Party bouncing around the country in an attempt to win a seat. Such antics only further tarnish the reputation of both the Green Party and the political process.
We deserve a better democracy that this.
thanks Stuart – really appreciate your comments – I think you would be a great candidate who understands what I think most Green and Green-leaning people believe and do in their own lives.
All the best!
Thanks, Michael.
Stuart,
As always, you have the best interests of the Green Party in mind.
Instead of having Elizabeth win a small meeting by acclamation, you have so selflessly put your name forward as a sacrificial lamb to help the May team run up her vote in a nomination meeting to show that she is the true choice of local members.
The end result will probably have a greater meeting attendance, and a much higher vote for May than if it was just her and none of the above. She will look like she has the real support of the community.
Right on, Dan. Elizabeth May winning after a challenge gives a much better image of a democratic Green Party than if she was to be parachuted in without resistance.
However, the fact that both she and her campaign manager sit on the party’s Campaign committee to me is a conflict of interest. This same committee has been constantly adjusting the rules to severely reduce the number of days nominations are open, from the original 75-105 days in March, 2009, to 7 days in July, 2009, and to only 4 days on August 15th. They did not inform myself or party members of the last reduction until August 22nd, mere days before the opening of nominations.
That Elizabeth May’s campaign manager has already signed a rental agreement on a main street storefront in Sidney, disturbs me even more. Already, a large sum of money has been transferred from the party’s federal coffers to the Saanich-Gulf Islands EDA, of which a good proportion is specified for use only if Elizabeth becomes the candidate.
I’m not naive enough to believe that this nomination battle would be a level playing field, but I am appalled by the degree to which the central party apparatus has interfered in what is supposed to be a democratic nomination contest. Their actions only serve to confirm the need for democratic reform within the Green Party.
I stand on the principle of democratic process, and the actions of the Green party, supposedly the most democratic of all political parties, have only increased my resolve. Without genuine democracy, not only are ourselves and all species doomed to an uncertain future due to climate change caused by global warming, buts we as Canadians are in danger of losing our democratic rights and liberties as we enter an era of increasing authoritarian repression of any form of social unrest.
A billion dollars spent on security for the Vancouver Olympics while thousands of people remain homeless on the streets of our cities, is not the kind of society that I and many other Canadians want. We must defend our democratic rights, or they surely will be taken away from us.
The Green Party was built on the “Do It Yourself” principle. (I always associate this with the punk rock movement. “If you don’t like the music you’re hearing on the radio, strap on a guitar and make your own.”
If you don’t like how our government is run, start a new party, the Greens.
If you don’t like how the Greens are run, stand for office yourself, even in opposition to the leader. A leader supported by the party’s membership will win. That’s how democracy works, look it up.
Unlike other parties, the Greens actually have “Respect for Diversity” and “Participatory Democracy” as two of our six core values.
Exactly. I’ll consider your suggestions, John. But first, I’d like to try to rescue the Green party from its slippery slope.
It’s about time some of you people woke up!
How does it feel to have your party hijacked right under your noses.
Elizabeth May is NO Greeny, she is a liberal plant
and will vote with the Liberals on every issue.
Lizzy will not run where Liberals have a chance of winning, because that is not the road to Minister of the Environment.
The Green party will be sacrificed on the alter of the ends justify the means.
Why won’t any of you demand she run against a strong Liberal, thereby shutting up people like me and at least attempting to show where her true loyalties lie.
Perhaps you could suggest that to her yourself, William? You may have more clout with her inner circle of advisors than I.
The single most important thing about Elizabeth May is that she aspires to be a professional politician sitting in Parliament and benefiting from the perks of office until she receives a substantial pension and perhaps a Senate appointment, thus making it possible for her to live on the public purse for the rest of her life– or until our civilization collapses, whichever comes first. Because there is such a disconnect between her limited grasp of the ecological crisis we presently confront and her business friendly and business pretty much as usual non -solutions a vote for her is a vote for ecocide. I do not say that she is worse than most other politicians. Sadly, she is also no better. In her undignified hunger for political office by any means necessary she resembles all Liberal and Conservative politicians and most NDPers. Is it not obvious from her recent history that her personal career is far more important to her than her pale green, business friendly, business pretty much as usual agenda? We need Greens who will run not with the idea of getting elected foremost in their minds but with the idea that we are running out of time to rescue the human species and many other species from catastrophe and that we need to mobilize as many people as possible not merely to get a few Greens elected but to begin on a number of fronts to initiate the transition to a downsized, ecologically sustainable, steady state economy and a political sphere that permits the involvement of as many people with ideas and energy in this task rather than leaving it to several hundred people in Ottawa who are in the pocket of a corporate sector to recognize and address the crisis. I would support Stuart because he is the anti-Elizabeth May and that is intended as high praise in case I have not made it obvious.
Thank you, John.
Hi Stuart,
You are right that Canadian democracy is essential and sorely in need of defense and renewal but what I have witnessed in the last year is Elizabeth May writing a fine book on the crisis in Canadian democracy and generating interviews around the country attempting to raise public awareness on that issue.
And I suspect this awareness raising will continue in her campaigning during the next election.
The fact that she is not running for the Liberals in a safe seat despite having been seriously courted by them effectively rebuts accusations that she is in politics for her own ends.
I agree with you, Eric, that her book is useful; I said that in my review on this site. But I don’t think that her political analysis goes far enough, or really examines the distribution of power in our society. Elizabeth in her book suggests that bad behaviour in parliament and the centralisation of power in the prime minister’s office are the problems. I’m suggesting that the Green Party exhibits exactly the same pattern. The problem is structural, not merely behavioural or ethical.
Sorry to hear about your legal struggle, John. I’ve never been convinced that the anguish surrounding a lawsuit is worth the justice that may or may not be achieved. However, I have no personal beef with Elizabeth May. My struggle is for proper democratic process in the Green Party, and a non-hierarchical, bioregional democracy for Canada.
[...] Why I am Standing as a Nomination Candidate [...]
Hi Stuart, The point is she is continuing to raise this issue from the book platform she has launched. You need to begin somewhere and then move the analysis forward as the public awareness grows.
I would also question your strategic analysis of the long term political impact of a few breakthrough GPC seats in Parliament. By this analysis the Reform Party winning one seat in 1989 (Deborah Gray) was a non-event. In fact they went on to win 52 seats in the next election in 1993 and then formed the Official Opposition in 1997 and later transformed the PC Party into the Party we are governed by now. Hardly low impact.
The big factor is how elected Greens would perform as MP’s in Parliament and it is my opinion that Elizabeth would excel if she was elected.
Hi Eric,
I agree with you that Elizabeth has performed a useful function with her book by bringing attention to the dysfunctional state of Canada’s parliament. However, I’m taking the issue further with a deeper political analysis. I’m suggesting that the hierarchical nature of the current political process is essentially undemocratic and certainly not in sync with the Green Party’s own belief in participatory democracy.
So although having MPs in parliament could possibly boost the growth of the Green Party, if that means having a bunch of politically centralist light green MPs from a political party based on the same model of elitist domination as the other parties, this isn’t going to change the nature of Canadian democracy one whit.
Your conclusion, that the big factor is how elected Greens would perform as MPs, is absolutely correct. While the Green Party is as hierarchical as the other political parties; while it attracts and promotes the very same kind of political mindset and gamesmanship that is the bane of democracy; and while there is no discussion of Green principles or political education of the blue-green refugees from other parties, there is no guarantee that Green MPs will be any better or different.
I stand on my belief that electing one or more Green MPs is not going to change Canadian democracy by one iota, unless the Green Party of Canada restructures itself as a non-hierarchical, participatory, bioregional political confederation.
Stuart, your own situation and words contradict yourself.
In your article you create the new concept of someone running in a “foreign bioregion”. Yet the whole concept of bioregions is subjectively created by whomever uses the term. It is not an ecological reality, just another human construct to help interpret smaller (dare I say human-scale) portions of the biosphere. Since ranges of different species overlap, any drawing of biosphere boundaries is subjective and, if used as political boundaries, subject to gerrymandering. And your denunciation of May as “foreign” – why would that apply to her and not to you? If she chooses to live in the region – as you have (although in your case, not in the riding) – does that not allow her to be a valid representative? You were not born in that bioregion, nor even the nation-state it resides in or continent it rests on. I suppose you have some idea of how long someone would have to live in the bioregion to not be “foreign” – and conveniently you’ve lived there long enough, May hasn’t.
You believe that politics should flow bioregionally. If that is the case, why don’t you run (and get elected) to local government? Running to be an MP in Ottawa – about as far from your “bioregion” as can be – makes no sense for a self-declared bioregionalist. Why would you seek a position that puts you in authority over multiple “foreign bioregions”? Even the Bloc sitting as members of a House they feel part of against their will makes more logical sense than your own campaign.
You claim the GPC is too centralized and top-down, yet decry that it lacks “political education of the blue-green refugees from other parties”. Who, if not the centre/top, would mandate such an “education” program? You are essentially saying that the ideas brought to the party by new members are invalid – that they can only be part of the “grassroots” once they have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the pre-existing orthodoxy. That doesn’t sound very grassroots to me. I see you as the type who supports grassroots if and only if they are on your side – and derides them as sadly deluded whenever they disagree with you. (For example, the grassroots of the Green Party elected May leader). The membership in SGI seems strongly in support of having Elizabeth represent them as candidate and MP. Can the same be said for you? When May wins over you, will that be a centralized failure of the grassroots?
Of course, your most farcical statement is that “the Green Party is as hierarchical as the other political parties; … it attracts and promotes the very same kind of political mindset and gamesmanship that is the bane of democracy”.
Your own candidacy for nomination puts the lie to this assertion. What other political party – mainstream or fringe – would allow a member (not even resident in the riding) to challenge the leader’s nomination? None, of course. The leader has the power under the Elections Act to choose/refuse the candidate in any and all ridings, so if Elizabeth wanted the fix to be in, she could cancel your candidacy and endorse her own with a snap of her fingers. That she is not shows your own views of the party are flawed.
I also notice that you bill yourself as a “three-time Green political candidate” but according to your bio, only ran for a Green Party twice. Your third (actually, first) “Green” candidacy you attribute to having been part of a “green caucus” of the NDP. I’m sorry, but I would call this an NDP candidacy, not a Green one. I believe the Chief Returning Officer would say the same.
Erich, Bioregions are not subjective, they can be defined using objective criteria and they certainly are an ecological reality. Sometimes their boundaries are distinct, such as the top of an alpine ridge, while other bioregions fade into their neighbouring regions. Bioregions also take into account human settlement, which is possibly where you ‘gerrymandering’ comes in, although it’s usually clear which are the major human settlements of a particular bioregion. Unfortunately, the administrative regions defined by the colonisation of Canada by Europeans do not correspond to natural bioregions, which is partly why government in Canada is so divorced from Nature.
As for political education, there isn’t even any discussion of Green principles in the Green Party, which has turned itself into a mindless political machine dedicated only to getting “someone” elected — anyone will do. So how can you guarantee that any Green MP or MLA/MNA is going to be devoted to espousing Green politics or even policy based on Green political values? If the blue-greens who have taken over the party don’t want to learn about Green principles, they’re in the wrong party. There must be a way of defining a refining Green politics, or the party is dead.
I’m sorry you have chosen to deny the current state of democracy within the Green Party. Possibly you identify with the mindless electorialism that dominates, which makes you a party man, not a student of politics. As for pointing to the fact that Elizabeth May, while having the power to deny my nomination candidacy, has chosen not to exert it as proof of the democratic nature of the party, the fact that she has this power at all is contrary to the stated principles of participatory democracy in the party’s own constitution. Federal Council has fought this battle and won. The ‘Leader’ of the Green Party is a leader in name only. According to Green principles, she is only supposed to be a spokesperson, not a dictator.
And yes, the Green Caucus of the BCNDP was as Green as they come. Some of them even became Greens, while others of the more devoted socialist persuasion, or from respect for family history, staying within the party. So I’m not going to apologise for calling all my three provincial candidacies Green. I’m a Green, and have always been. Get used to it.
Bioregions are very subjective, because you can choose which “objective” criteria you use to define them. Using the alpine ridge, for example, means you are using a watershed as the boundary. (Watershed boundaries are fairly objective). But it means you are ignoring the other potential criteria of alpine species, such as birds or plants or insects, whose range encompasses both sides of the ridge. You are also ignoring physical geography, such as “mountain” vs. “lowlands”. (And where does mountain become foothill become lowland?) As you note, most “bioregions” fade into others – so are the people in this crossover region members of the one bioregion, or the other, or some new “border” region? Again, subjective. One can also decide – based on subjective view – how large or small any bioregion might be. (Does a little microclimate comprise its own bioregion? Are the prairies one bioregion, or several? Ditto for Shield, or tundra.) None of these boundaries are hard & fast – they are categories created by human imagination just as are the lines drawn by colonial powers, or the traditional lands negotiated between aboriginal peoples. Decentralization makes good sense, and decisions should be made at the most local level practical, but trying to re-draw borders into bioregions is nothing more than an attempt at creating your own self-identity – valid to yourself, but not something which can be imposed on others. Certainly not a reason to disparage someone from “away”, especially since you, too, are from almost half a planet away. One can’t deny that living in Saanich (as Elizabeth plans) is closer to the heart of the SGI “bio-region” than living in Victoria, as you do. If location is key, then she’s got you beat fair & square.
It’s clear when one place (“bioregion”) is very different from another far away, but it is never clear where one can say “this one ends, the next begins”. Any attempt to re-draw our borders thusly (or use bioregionalism to dismiss others) is futile or disingenuous.
If you really think there is no discussion of green principles in the Green Party then you are sorely ignorant of the many blogs, lists, and meetings where precisely those issues are discussed in an ongoing, wide-ranging manner. They may not reach your chosen conclusions, but they are certainly discussed (ad nauseum, to some).
That you think the Party has given Elizabeth unilateral powers over local candidacy shows you are ignorant of both the Elections Act and the GPC constitution. It is the Act which specifies that a candidate can only run for a party if their nomination is endorsed by the party leader – this is not a Green Party rule. The GPC constitution actually specifies that, to exercise this right of refusal, the leader needs 2/3 support of the member-elected Council – on a case-by-case basis. NO OTHER PARTY in Canada removes this much power from the duly elected leader and puts it in the hands of the members’ representatives.
Elizabeth is demonstratably acting as spokesperson, not dictator, in seeking the SGI seat. It is about as far as possible from where she’d prefer to run, but she is running there because the PARTY has asked her to. THEY (not she) have chosen that as the most effective place for their spokesperson to run in order to have the most effective voice – as an MP. Is it not the responsibility of the leader/spokesperson to speak from the party’s chosen location, as well as passing along the party’s chosen message? Do you really think Elizabeth won’t be a better spokesperson with the resources and attention that accrue to an elected MP? The choice of Central Nova may have been a bit dictatorial, but the choice of SGI is anything but.
Of course, it is your assertion that the Green leader should be only a spokesperson and not serve any other sort of leadership role. This belief is not expressed in the Global Green Charter from which are derived the fundamental values/principles of the GPC and other Green parties. Neither does it necessarily follow on from your own commitment to participatory democracy. Believe it or not, there is room for leadership within the framework of participatory democracy. Perhaps you cannot reconcile these, but the Green Party is constantly doing so (with varying success, of course).
Well written, Erich. But the hierarchical nature of the Canada Elections Act is what must be challenged, first by developing the Green Party as a model of distributed, bioregional democracy. I believe that this will provide a more successful foundation for the Green Party that the current dysfunctional setup.
Hi Stuart and Everyone.
The comments on this website assume all kind of mainly negative aspects of Elizabeth May’s character. Anyone who actually knows her will be aware how wide of the mark most of these comments are. Power grabbing and living off the public purse are not part of who she is. Elizabeth does not envisage a permanent life in Canadian politics, neither does she desire it. In fact we are lucky that she is still willing to put herself through this gruelling process of becoming an MP. Elizabeth has been a lifelong Green and to say that she is Green Lite is a travesty and totally untrue.
What you are doing Stuart is pefectly OK and I hope you win if that is what the people in SGI desire, but these personal attacks on Elizabeth are made by people who do not know her or her motivations and should be discouraged by you rather than the opposite.
Hi Peter,
Right on! I applaud you pointing out that personal attacks are not what this is all about. Let me repeat that I have no personal beef with Elizabeth May.
I’m standing on the issue of democratic process, for the survival and evolution of democracy in the Green Party and in Canada. Without a participatory democracy, we are not going to achieve any progress in environmental, ecological, and social justice arenas, so vitally necessary at this time when we humans have undermined the planetary life support system on which we and all living species depend.
Please, no personal attacks on anyone from here on! Let’s keep this discussion focussed on political principles. The issue is democratic process within the party and in Canada. It’s a debate that is long needed in both arenas.
Peter, you and I have both served as federal councillors of GPC. I don’t pretend to know her that well, although she was kind enough to come out uninvited to my nomination meeting last year.
I would suggest that Elizabeth suffers from “Narcissistic personality disorder” (google it). A lot of public figures probably do – Ignatieff also comes to mind. As a CEO of software companies, I probably have the same problem, on a smaller scale.
This makes her a highly-effective media magnet, but an ineffective, even destructive, political leader.
After the 2010 leadership race, I expect to see Elizabeth back as an issues advocate, perhaps as CEO of the Forestry Institute or something similar. I am sure she will do a great job.
[...] by the reaction, the announcement that Stuart Hertzog is running for the GPC nomination in SGI against Green Party leader Elizabeth May, has come as a [...]
Re personal attacks on May. In my earlier comment I said that May’s ambitions and strategy entail getting her a seat and a career in parliament no matter how many ridings she has to be parachuted into to accomplish this. I also said that in this respect she is no different than other professional politician. Hardly a personal attack–more of a sociological observation. This effort on her part–even if it eventually gets her the seat she seems so desperately to desire– will not advance the kind of radically green agenda necessary to stave off ecocide. I stand by these comments. It will do no good to point to the success of Reform or new Conservatives as an inspiration to greens. The conservative tradition is very old in Canada. The reform-conservatives already had a large constituency ready to vote for a united right wing party. This the Greens will not have even after May is elected unless she is contemplating a Green-NDP alliance. I should point out how disappointing green parties have been elsewhere when they have put all their eggs in the parliamentary or equivalent basket and neglected movement building. The focus of every Green candidate should be on democratizing politics–if you think that liberal or parliamentary politics are substantially democratic you have not studied the history of democracy, liberalism, parliament– and on educating the public to the looming threat to our species and so many others. I have read enough of May to know she has no conception of what would be required to mitigate the extensive damage to the living planet that will be done if we do mot move quickly and decisively in the direction I cited in my earlier message. My comments about May have next to nothing to do with her personality and everything to do with how she has acted to advance her pale green agenda. I suggest that we not squander our energies by following the May path to nowhere when Stuart is pointing to a better alternative which will offer and require much greater participation by serious greens .
Several of us are rather dismayed by the news of Elizabeth seeking a seat here.
We would like to see Elizabeth in the House but using this riding to attempt to get there.
Briony Penn won our absolute respect in the last election and we will be supporting her choice as a successor.
I appreciate your perspective and conclusions.
I have long admired Elizabeth but I cannot support her here.
oops!… should say:
“but NOT using this riding to get there.
Hi Stuart, I think you are very mistaken that Green MPs would not make a difference in advancing participatory democracy. Had we been in the same strategic position as the NDP when they initially negotiated an agreement to support the Martin government it is very probable we would have made electoral reform (Citizens Assembly) a key demand.
This apparent clash between the Realo and Fundi perspectives is a false one. Both need to and can work together in harmony if they appreciate and respect what each brings to the political change process. It is certainly possible to be a Realo and Fundi at the same time! In fact one of the reasons I support Elizabeth May is because I think she very much appreciates that dynamic tension.
I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one, Eric. I agree with you about people attempting to work in harmony, but real differences do exist between Realos and Fundis, and between party centralists and grassroots activists. The trick is to use the best of both, and confine our failings to the judgement of our consciences.
Eric Walton, re “It is certainly possible to be a Realo and Fundi at the same time!”
Agreed fully. That is why Liz May, via her leadership and political decisions, should be given full reign to once and for all flush the GPC pretender down the drain of political oblivion so that we can get on with it.
That’s kind of an ambivalent statement, Sebastian! It could be interpreted many different ways.
Re “It could be interpreted many different ways.”
No shit. =;-D
Seems like you are similar to Sebastian, this idea of telling people all the other options suck, therefore pick me. Sebastian tends to use fear mongering (the sky is falling…pick me to be your dictator), you sling mud. Neither inspires to greatness, showing us by example what greatness we can achieve. If you think Elizabeth is self serving, this article only shows you too, are self serving. The knife cuts both ways. Elizabeth does inspire though. Call her what you will, but she has achieved far greater good for the Greens in Canada than any before her. For you to throw stones only diminishes your cause – certainly not hers, IMHO. Everyone has the right to critique, but as a leadership candidate, your strength comes from your ability to let others toss the stones while you are playing a flute, leading us in an entirely new direction. Otherwise you are no leader, just another potato.
You are making an emotive, an ad-hominem argument, Ryan. I’ve asked people not to do this, but to keep comments to the principles being raised.
In fact, I haven’t called Elizabeth self-serving, and as I’ve said before, I have no particular beef against her. I’m pointing to the lack of participatory democracy both within the party and in Canada as a fundamental problem that must be resolved.
You are right, though, in that everybody has a right to critique. In a healthy political situation, criticism is welcomed and examined seriously. Unfortunately, in a situation where control is exerted by an elite, criticism is seen as negative and critics labelled as ‘dissenters’ and subject to ad-hominem arguments and other abuse.
And how did you know that I play the flute? Strictly, I play the fipple flutes, the whistles, the oldest human instrument and one directly obtained from the birds. When I play out in the forests, in Nature, I can truly say that my flute playing is strictly for the birds. They seem to like it, though. Often, they join in.
So less personal comments, please. Let us focus on the state of democracy both within the party and in Canada. That’s more important that dissing people.
Actually Stewart, I was critiquing your personal attack on E May, and your apparent leadership style as stated in your above platform, not you personally. Ad hominem? Hardly. If you are going to be that hyper sensitive, you might be in for a nasty ride in politics. Again, I criticised your words, how you represent yourself as leader in this specific context furnished exclusively by your article above, not you personally. I have no idea who you are or what you are like outside this context. Your article and indeed this particular response doesn’t particularly inspire me to want to be like you or follow you as my leader and I was merely pointing that out.
Fair enough, but at this time I’m not attempting to become leader. I’m merely standing up for what I believe, which is participatory democracy made real, not just words in a constitution.
” the primary task of the Green Party is not to just to talk about the environment, but to defend and develop Democracy.”
Is that right? Defending democracy and developing it? You are running for the
wrong party. That’s the US policy in Afghanistan in a nutshell, usually accompanied by military and corporate support. How will you differentiate such an aim from that of NATO…developing citizen particpation, but not at the point of a gun? I won’t be supporting such a
twisting of the purpose of the Green party. It has never been to “just talk” about the environment. How does it answer the needs of the earth? It would be more to the point to legislate “democratic” rights to the environment.
“democracy” and reform of people’s “worst tendencies” are themselves anthropocentric concerns, and neglect again what makes the greens different than any merely political party–standing for the environment. The original principles are ..”peace, world nuclear disarmament, human rights, and an economic system based on ecological principles.”
Andy, you are confusing the lie that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were to defend democracy, with my attempt to open the debate on what constitutes a genuine democracy for this time in history.
Re “The original principles are ..’peace, world nuclear disarmament, human rights, and an economic system based on ecological principles.’”
And it is for reasons such as this type of thinking why the Global Greens (with their global structure and Charter) are such patsies for the Bilderbergers. Cem Ozdemir at Bilderberg ’09 was a major, major watershed. His name was on the list of attendees. From the looks of things, he flew in for one day (of the three-day event), then flew back out to participate at a labour rally back in Germany…with convenient photo op to “disprove” that he attended.
Sorry, you’ve lost me there. The world is full of political manoeuvrings.
Good for you, Mr Hertzog.
The Green Party really needs someone to stand up to Elizabeth May and tell her that the party is not her personality cult.
I will be honest with you, I am not a Green Party voter. Rather, I am a Conservative voter who would be interested in taking on the Green Party as a second choice if only the party can ditch its traditionally poor leadership and distinguish itself as an alternative to the NDP.
I wish you the best of luck in your nomination. I suspect Elizabeth May’s internal critics could use something like this as a clarion call to action to save your party, which would be a good thing in my view.
Thank you, Patrick. I hope you will soon elevate the Green Party to your first choice. I believe that Green political principles, correctly applied, will soon replace the centralised democracy of mainstream political parties of both the right and the left.
Limited de-centralism would certainly be a boon to Canadians, in my view. I’m not expecting to be looking to the Green Party as my first choice any time soon, but with the right leadership, anything is possible.
Stuart has stated for me a total political “take” that I subsrcibe to.
Good to hear, Oemissions! Especially now that the Attack of the Party Faithful has begun. But this is to be expected. Some feel I am taking away their one shining hope, but in fact I am merely pointing out that their Emperor has very few clothes, and their Empire is but an empty shell.
Stuart, I noticed that you were at the Saanich – Gulf Islands Green Party EDA Annual General Meeting. Have you joined any of the association’s committees or taken a role in the organization?
I was present at the Saanich-Gulf Islands AGM and rose to challenge Elizabeth on the similarity between the charges she was levelling in her book at other parties and the state of democracy in the Green Party.
I am not a member of Saanich-Gulf Islands EDA so I cannot join any of the Association’s committees. However, since declaring my nomination candidacy, I have attended its Executive meetings. I went to the AGM of my own Victoria EDA, but with only five people present, it could not make quorum. This is symptomatic of the sorry state of most Green party EDAs.
I attended the AGM of the BC Green Party and became a representative to Provincial Council for the South Island. I have attend all subsequent Provincial Council meetings in this capacity. So I am very involved in party committees. Does that satisfy you?
Not really. If I understand correctly, you are criticizing the Green Party for ignoring the grassroots and centralizing decision-making. But how would you know? You haven’t bothered to become involved at the grassroots, except in the provincial party, a completely different organization.
I can stand alone in my room and shout at the world for ignoring my views, but I don’t expect much sympathy.
If you click on Reply against a comment, the response will be properly nested—a small point, but I like to keep things neat.
Brian, I know of what I speak, and I am very involved at a grassroots level both in the Green Party and my local community. But I’m not getting the impression, from the positive encouragement I’ve received here on on other blogs and newspaper sites, that I stand alone in my views.
How are you involved in the Green Party besides being a member? Before you accuse the Green Party of ignoring its ideals of participatory democracy, you should show up at a few meetings and participate more. Sniping from the sidelines is easy.
I’ve had lots of experience with poor communication within the Green Party – but I don’t take that as evidence that my views are being ignored, I take it as deficiencies in the organizational structure of the party – too few people trying to do too much work.
I’ve also had experiences where my ideas were not implemented, but I don’t take that as evidence of autocracy, I take it as part of the nature of a political party full of individuals with competing points of view. Mostly my views coincide with those positions of the party, but not always – if you’re looking for a political party where you agree 100% with all of its policy, you’ll probably find yourself in a party of one.
I’ve also had experience in submitting a policy resolution. It was debated, modified slightly, and passed. There is a mechanism in place for incorporating new ideas – it can seem time-consuming and laborious, but how could it be any other way?
The distinction you make between being a member and being in the inner circle of party activists shows the extent to which the Green party has become a hierarchy that does not respect its ‘ordinary’ members.
In a non-hierarchical political system, everyone feels that they are part of the decision-making process. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one, and it comes down to how the party is structured organisationally.
But I don’t think I’m going to convince you of my legitimacy as a party member or my views. We must agree to disagree, Brian. Anyway, thanks for keeping this discussion properly nested! We can continue it at some time in the future.
You say, “The distinction you make between being a member and being in the inner circle of party activists shows the extent to which the Green party has become a hierarchy that does not respect its ‘ordinary’ members”, but just exactly how are we supposed to know the views of our ordinary members?
I ran a public website for the EDA of this Saanich – Gulf Islands Green Party for about five years where we solicited input from everybody as an effort to be as non-hierarchical and inclusive as possible. We got a bit of input, but not very much – maybe we were a bit early in doing that, but no other political party was doing it. I never heard from you during that period.
How are you suggesting that the party be less hierarchical? I personally think that electronic forums like this one have real potential, and the party is doing it at the national level, but I’d also like to see more debate occurring locally. People seem more ready to participate in forums like this than they did even a couple of years ago – maybe it’s time to give it another shot.
Are you blogging on the national site?
This is not about you !
And E May was not even a member of the party till she ran for the leadership so your arguments do not hold much water.
Stuart,
Thanks for the challenge following this thread. I’m not much of a writer so my thought might not be as erudite as some. Indeed there are issues here that need to be addressed and my writing ability notwithstanding, I would like to say my piece.
As way of background, I have to tell you that I am one of the “blue-greens.” I’m an old farmer trying to take care of my little piece of the planet, and having an ever increasingly difficult time. I used to consider myself a Progressive Conservative, but when issues of the environment led me to change priorities (and the PCs disappeared), I became a Green supporter.
I was first welcomed into the fold but later told (and often) that I am not “green” enough by long-term “fundis” (not my choice of words). I find this “realo” / “fundi” schism a bit stupid. Our commonalities ought to be enough to allow us to work together on most issues.
While I think you have every right to challenge Ms. May for the Green candidacy in Saanich-Gulf Islands, I continue to be perplexed by the notion of some Greens who wish to be a political party yet are un-fussed about electing MPs/MLAs/MNAs. The idea of being a movement over a political party leaves me scratching my head.
I see this as politically dishonest: asking voters for support… and especially for money. The call, “Vote for me… I’m happy not to be elected because I believe I am morally superior to the whole dirty business of politics” is simply asking for failure. Taking money for that endeavour, or asking people to volunteer their lives to the effort is just dumb to me… but then again, I’m not an academic or a philosopher.
I cannot believe that people like myself… who still believe individuals have enough integrity to make a positive difference in our political system are somehow simply naive, or that we miss the point of the scale of change necessary to “save the planet.”
I believe getting elected is a first step in our system. Ignoring this fact will not get us the chance to participate in the system, and we will never get a chance to explain our perspectives in the halls of political power. By not getting elected, we cast ourselves into oblivion.
The idea that enough of the electorate would vote for a party that does not see getting elected as the first priority is “pie-in-the-sky” and without integrity to support the ideas we believe in.
What I am reading in this thread seems more like the same partisan politics that has become the Canadian reality. Greens are fond of saying this party is not about left vs right. It is an attractive motto, however, this party is taking on the shades of “realo” vs “fundi” which is simply the same crap, rebranded, and what is worse, it will hurt our cause politically.
I see Elizabeth May as one step in a process to get a Green voice in the House of Commons. She has brought the Green Party a certain cache and certainly more visibility among a larger group of Canadians. I see her as a bridge between the “fundis” and the “realos.”
All arguments aside about the wisdom of running against Peter McKay last time, I’m pretty sure Ms. May will run to win in the next election. Win or lose, she will face a leadership review in 2010. That is the time for challengers to mount arguments to replace her. Of course those arguments need to be heard. If someone comes around to inspire more confidence then we will get the chance to choose a new leader.
Until then (and as a “blue-green”) I think it is acceptable for the leader of a political party to run in a winnable riding. Indeed, I think it is an obligation. For my own part, what I find rather mystifying is this continuing idea that the Green Party is above winning or losing. If one believes that, wouldn’t it be better (and more honest) to stay totally engaged in activist activity… which I also respect very much.
At any rate, thanks for allowing my say in this debate, however naive my contribution might be.
Regards,
Will Munsey
Will, you indeed are extremely erudite and write very well. Thank you for your comments. You are right that the current system depends on people getting elected. But its “winner-takes-all” approach leaves so many people dissatisfied, and allows those with more money and political clout to seize control of the country and bend it to their will.
Once in power, a government can override the wishes of the people, and impose an industrial plant or sell off public property to benefit a few of its supporters. And as for environmental protection, this means nothing to many who only want to enrich themselves as the expense of others.
That’s why I’m suggesting that the Green Party must practice what it preaches, which is participatory democracy on a bioregional basis. Parachuting anyone as candidate into a local riding isn’t participatory democracy, a principle enshrined in the Party’s own constititution.
“this isn’t going to change the nature of Canadian democracy one whit”
Stuart has repeated (in response to Eric Walton) what I challenged him on as commenter #2 above, and am still awaiting a proper reply, instead of bald restatement, making him unfortunately seem as of little depth in some things as others, which I wish to see proven wrong.
“Green Party is as hierarchical as the other political parties”
This is certainly false, and in fact the party needs restructuring for any eventual efficacy in a partly MORE centralized fashion, partly more grassroots fashion, as it is it is too chaotic & unmanageable. By this I do not mean to oppose Stuart’s seeking nomination. I am questioning, again, his reasoning, I as one who possibly deeply indeed shares, I gather, his “bioregional” approach.
“political education of the blue-green refugees from other parties”
I assume then Stuart has seen nothing of my copious contributions on the GPC blogsite & elsewhere among Greens. Maybe it’s time to make something of a common cause? But not on your apparent view of the function of national parliamentary democracy.
Why do you assume anyone reads what you say?
I do not and you keep mentioning those copious amounts of writing like it gives you some clout or some credibility where non has been earned.
Stuart?
He is standing up on his beliefs…beliefs others of us share.
He is not like the so called leader expecting no contest.
And not some one guilty of breaking many already.
This will in the end maybe just attract more attention in the riding and hopefully more democracy as both of these people based on our constitution are free to stand up for the nomination or have those rules been changed quietly as well?
E May should be RUNNING IN NEW WESTMINSTER BC… anyway …..as it is a ndp seat with no incumbent and very winnable with our policies!
Again ..another poor decision from the top down club !!
LET THIS MAN RUN !!!
And listen to yourselves here some of you ..please.
Sorry, not as complimentary as the others who speak here — part of the prairie scene and feel that two horses on the same team can only pull the wagon apart.
What if the wagon has drifted into the ditch?
Stuart I applaud your efforts to democratize the system, but would it not be true to say that all Canadians, in all parties are short changed? Would Citizen initiated referendum not give everyone including greens a tool for bottom up control? You might get votes from other political persuasions, if you included everyone in the campaign to give us the athenean advantage.
You are right, Guy, that Canadians are getting short-changed by the current political system. Referendum is a way of re-asserting citizen democracy, but it’s a heavy hammer that requires a huge amount of organising. The bar for success is set so high that referendums rarely succeed in Canada.
Surely, with modern technology, a more efficient and instantaneous voting system can be devised to allow a broad base of views to be polled in decisions? I’m not sure of the exact details of this, but it’s certainly something that should be carefully examined in the discussion I would like to see take place about the kind of democracy we would like to see come about.
Stuart, re “Surely, with modern technology, a more efficient and instantaneous voting system can be devised to allow a broad base of views to be polled in decisions?”
Yes, a technological option that has been present for at least a couple of decades now. So, it would seem to be obvious, there is political motive in play to prevent implementation.
However, with some of the horror stories coming out of the States re electronic voting, a simple X on a paper ballot subject to impartial scrutineers seems to be the saver route to go. With corporate ownership of the technology and software (witness the States) the temptation for “tampering” is too welcome. The state of Vermont, as example, is doing heavy lobbying to bring back the paper ballot. In this case, a paper, low-tech KISS with related transparency, may be the better route to go, even if more cumbersome.
I agree about the use of technology and atleast getting the public’s input on issues voted on before the Commons vote.
A panel of informed people could discuss the issue on TV and online.Allow for public comment.
How many people in Canada want this appeal of the Supreme Court ruling on Omar?
Also, after this BC budget “fiasco”, parties should be presenting during the election,an itemized budget proposal.Lets see it before. They,our MLAs spens all their time during the legislative run time,arguing over it. Takes eons to get something done.
I just read about the complaint filed with Elections Canada re the transfer of $62K from the GPC Federal Council into the SGI EDA. Good one!
Last year during the electoral rape of Central Nova I poked around via some contacts in the real estate industry as to who (or what) was the actual buyer of the real estate political prop in New Glasgow. It turned out to be one Elizabeth May. With the market being as soft as it is right now, who knows if it has sold or not, i.e. the owner could be strapped for down payment on another property. Should the current search for “a home” in SGI result in an actual purchase, who knows who (or what) will be signed on the deed of purchase.
Can you not poke Shavluk to whisper his pending lawsuit against Liz May in the New Year into some friendly media ears? To my mind, it would seem to be Cascadia-specific, yes?
Here’s what the friendly media ears have branded Mr. Hertzog: “pain in butt”
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/691373
Can’t say as I would disagree, given the spurious complaint about a transfer from the party to the EDA. There is nothing illegal whatsoever about transferring any amount of money between party and riding. Try reading the Elections Act – it’s not that hard to do. The only thing which impacts on a nomination race is money transferred to, or spent on behalf of, contestants. If that’s not been done, then there is nothing of which to complain. Just sound and fury, signifying nothing much.
Of course, that you so interested in what happens in a local nomination in another “bioregion” shows the hypocricy of your faith in that belief system. How about you go back to your own leadership campaign and your demands that the UN rename Earth to Gaia and the GPNS put it’s money into silver bullion?
Erich, I think the editor was trying to suggest that Elizabeth May is experiencing unwelcome resistance to her electoral ambitions. After all, the pain is in her butt. However, I don’t think that headline was appropriate for the serious complaint I have made, and I plan to write to the Editor of the Star asking for a retraction.
The playing field is not level for me in this campaign, and the Elections Act says that it should be. Sure, money can be transferred between a party and an EDA, but money and resources cannot be given to a nomination candidate unless it is offered equally to all candidates.
That’s not happening in this nomination race, and May’s campaign manager John Fryer is not being truthful when he claims in the article you mention that money has not been spent on the Elizabeth May campaign. It has been spent on things directly aimed at helping her to secure the nomination as candidate in this riding. This is the basis of my complaint to Elections Canada.
Stuart, you say, “The playing field is not level for me in this campaign, and the Elections Act says that it should be. Sure, money can be transferred between a party and an EDA, but money and resources cannot be given to a nomination candidate unless it is offered equally to all candidates.”
Even if it were true that the central office were giving Elizabeth money to win the nomination, which I don’t think it is, where in the Elections Act does it say they can’t? I’m reading the Elections Act:
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&dir=leg/fel/cea&document=index&lang=e
and I can’t see it anywhere.
Brian, the transfer of funds to a nomination candidate is illegal under section 404.3(1) of the Elections Act, as indicated on in paragraph 52, page 9 of Elections Canada’s Information Sheet 5, Transfers Between Affiliated Political entities.
It says, “Nomination contestants may also receive transfers of goods or services (but not funds) from their registered party, or an electoral district association of their registered party (whether or not registered), if such transfers are offered equally to all contestants.”
Has she received funds?
$62,000 was transferred by Federal Council to the Saanich-Gulf Islands EDA. These funds were transferred to the EDA on two conditions:
- that the EDA choose Elizabeth May as its candidate in the coming election, and
- that her campaign manager Mr. John Fryer have complete control of these funds.
Once Ms. May became accepted as a nomination candidate, she still had at her disposal all of these funds to use in her nomination campaign. Her campaign also has access to the CiviCRM member database, which I don’t have. And, the party has sent volunteers to help in her campaign. It’s not clear if these volunteers had any expenses paid by the Party.
Whichever way you cut it, it’s not equal distribution of money and resources.
So the money hasn’t been transferred to Elizabeth, it’s been transferred to the EDA, and according to the EDA Board, no such conditions have been applied to it.
As for the CiviCRM database, I know that access to it is limited because of privacy concerns. Have you asked for and not received a list of SGI party members and their contact info?
As for volunteers sent by the party and their expenses, I have no idea, but I don’t think it would be a violation of any rules.
In any case Stuart, I don’t think your point is to challenge Elizabeth May on technicalities, it is to question the idea of the party concentrating limited resources on getting a candidate elected, rather than distributing them equally amongst all 308 candidates.
Or am I wrong?
You are wrong. I was told about the specific restrictions on the use of the money several times, both from the Board and by John Fryer, May’s campaign manager.
Although the party’s own Nomination Procedures state clearly that I was to receive the list within 24 hours of being authorised as a nomination candidate, I only received a list with partial information last night, and still do not have the same access to the CivCRM membership database as the May campaign.
I’m standing on the principle of participatory democracy within the Green Party and in Canada. the actions of the Campaign Committee and the Elizabeth may team show how far from this the Green Party currently is.
It’s all about openness and fairness — that’s my complaint, which I’ve now posted in full on this site at:
http://greenpolitics.ca/2009/09/my-complaint-to-elections-canada/
Stuart wrote: “You are wrong. I was told about the specific restrictions on the use of the money several times, both from the Board and by John Fryer, May’s campaign manager.”
So no rules have been broken, but you’re unhappy that resources will be concentrated on one candidate instead of being divided equally among all candidates. The division of limited resources has been debated long and hard within the party – where were you during that debate?
Stuart wrote: “Although the party’s own Nomination Procedures state clearly that I was to receive the list within 24 hours of being authorised as a nomination candidate, I only received a list with partial information last night, and still do not have the same access to the CivCRM membership database as the May campaign.”
Well, you may have received the information late, and if so, I’m sorry to hear it, but how was it partial – what was missing? And yes, you don’t have the same access to the CiviCRM membership database, Elizabeth May is the leader of the party, and as a Green Party member, I don’t want every nomination candidate to have complete access to the database. Maybe that’s a ‘lack of openness’, but I think a lot of members don’t want all of their information shared to every nomination candidate.
Stuart wrote: “I’m standing on the principle of participatory democracy within the Green Party and in Canada. the actions of the Campaign Committee and the Elizabeth may team show how far from this the Green Party currently is.”
“It’s all about openness and fairness…”
Yet, aside from arguing that all candidates should receive equal access to party resources – a subject that has been openly and extensively argued within the party – you haven’t made a case for why the current system isn’t open and fair. As for it not being ‘participatory’, please explain the specific logistics of how you think the system could be made more participatory – in my experience it has been very participatory – but not perfectly, as I don’t see a practical way for all members to participate in all decisions made by the party.
If you’ve got a better system, please suggest it – with some details as to how it can be practically accomplished – but please stop yammering on about how the system is not participatory without offering a better way.
I believe rules have been broken, Brian, and the decision to get the ‘leader’ elected is a strategic mistake that reduces the Green party to essentially one candidate. It puts all our eggs into one basket and does nothing to develop good candidates and strong EDAs throughout the country. I also believe it’s also unconstitutional as it does not support the Green Party’s own principle of participatory democracy.
As for proposing a better system, Please see my postings on this site:
Green politics is non-hierarchical
http://greenpolitics.ca/2008/09/08/green-politics-is-non-hierarchical/
and going back to 1985:
Distributed democracy
http://greenpolitics.ca/1985/06/distributed-democracy/
Stuart wrote: “I believe rules have been broken…”
You’re entitled to your belief, but so far you haven’t presented very convincing proof.
“…the decision to get the ‘leader’ elected is a strategic mistake that reduces the Green party to essentially one candidate. It puts all our eggs into one basket and does nothing to develop good candidates and strong EDAs throughout the country.”
You might be right on this, but the counter-argument goes that many, many people won’t take us seriously until we get at least one member elected. Lots of people want to vote for a party that has at least a chance of influencing the governing of the country. We agree on the need for PR in Canada, but until we get it – and at the moment the prospects aren’t bright – what shall we do? You argue we should divide our resources equally, many others, think it’s important to concentrate on getting somebody elected – and they are part of the grassroots too.
“I also believe it’s also unconstitutional as it does not support the Green Party’s own principle of participatory democracy.”
Maybe we need a debate on what ‘participatory’ means; I don’t see how concentrating resources makes us less ‘participatory’.
“As for proposing a better system, Please see my postings on this site:”
Well, I’m not sure how adding another layer – bioregional councils – between EDAs and the Provincial Councils will make us more participatory – maybe less? – and in any case, I notice that there is a darker black circle in the centre of each of your ‘building blocks’ – isn’t that just more hierarchy?
As for better use of the internet, I heartily agree. BTW, why aren’t you posting this on the national party blogsite?:
http://greenparty.ca/blogs
Open to all members, and a great forum for debating issues such as these.
Participatory democracy does not have a definition in our constitution which is violated by the current party strategy. The strategy may not accord with your personal view, but your view does not define the party’s.
This party clearly isn’t concentrating all its resources into one candidate.
First, the GPC (and GPC alone) divides up the federal revenue among ALL EDAs and regions along a rather grassroots-based formula (including voter support and membership numbers). This hasn’t stopped.
Second, the party is still working with a full-slate approach, which means providing support in the form of staff help to get signatures and loans of $1000 candidates deposit to ridings which are lacking in local volunteers or funds. Again, very supportive of the grassroots. The lack of this kind of grassroots support is why NO OTHER SMALL PARTY has EVER run a full slate, while we have 2 (or 3) times.
Finally, there is a strict spending limit in the riding, and if the election is called soon, no chance for pre-writ spending. I don’t know about your math skills, but $62,000 is far from the party’s whole budget. The party is also creating a platform in a broad-based consultative fashion and printing copies for EVERY riding. It is preparing literature templates that any riding can customize and print locally. It is preparing candidate briefings, and will provide survey-answering service for busy candidates. There will also be national and regional advertising for print, radio, and perhaps again TV.
The party has fixed on “get Elizabeth elected” as the #1 priority, but believe it or not, a multi-million-dollar organization can do more than just one thing at a time. I even saw recent reference to plans for a brief leader’s tour (by rail, egads) during the election in support of other ridings, which will take away somewhat from the leader’s riding focus.
The conceivable strategies for this election are three:
1 – get the leader elected (chosen version)
2 – get several candidates elected (tried last time but failed)
3 – get no candidates elected (what you seem to espouse by dividing all resources equally)
I can see the debate between 1 & 2, but 3 seems like a non-starter. Certainly premature until we have dozens or hundreds of potential winning campaigns lined up.
There are plenty of things that can be done BETWEEN elections to support growing strength at the grassroots, and at least some of them are being done. (Not all, but some). There is little that can be done – beyond what I’ve describe above which IS being done – to support the grassroots DURING an election.
You might have a grievance if the party were to
- end revenue sharing
- run only one candidate, or abandon the full slate
- spend no money outside the leader’s riding
- prevent/restrict local candidates from being chosen by and supported by their EDAs
- etc.
But none of these are actually being done. In fact, in every election since 2000, the party has provided MORE resources to each riding than in the prior one, and this trend looks likely to continue.
Your accusations of anti-participatory strategy are as substantial as puffs of hot air.
You are clearly confusing two different entities.
Elizabeth May the nomination contestant is not the same financial entity as Elizabeth May the candidate. Money that is being held in trust by the EDA to be transferred to EM the candidate can’t be spent by EM the nomination contestant. The candidate and contestant accounts would be separate accounts (with different official agents). And, in fact, EM the candidate (and account) can’t exist until the writ drops.
Plus, the focus is entirely different. As a nomination contestant, EM would only wish to contact current or lapsed members. It’s too late for any new members to join, so broad-based outreach is pointless. But as a candidate, she would need to reach out to undecided or other-party voters – I presume the members will vote unbidden for their local candidate on election day.
I strongly suspect that EM has little fear of not winning the nomination, so has no real need to spend ANY funds securing it. Maybe something nominal. Any funds spent by the EDA in seeking supporters for the upcoming election campaign applies equally to whomever the local candidate may be, and is thus irrelevant to the nomination contest. It is perfectly legitimate for the EDA to reach out to new supporters who would join the election effort in the likely event that EM wins the nomination. Doing so ahead of time has no real effect on the nomination contest. Also, whether or not EM is the candidate in any given riding, she IS the party leader, so the party has no reason not to seek general support for her in this or any other riding. (As you may or may not realize, a lot of people vote based on party leader rather than local candidate. Even Greens.) The party isn’t going to stop seeking general (or local) support for the leader just because someone is being a pain in the butt (pardon my TorStar-ese) in one particular riding.
Sorry, Erich, but there is no Elizabeth May the candidate at this time, she is only a nomination candidate. As soon as she became that, her campaign became a nomination campaign. Only someone with a forked tongue would declare that no money has been spent on getting her nominated. The legality of that is up to the Commissioner of Canada Elections to decide.
And your constant misuse of the Toronto Star headline is becoming as much a pain in the butt on this site as the discomfort caused to Ms. May and the Party by a grassroots member refusing to be steamrollered by what appears to have become the Elect-Elizabeth-May-By-Any-Means-Party, formerly known as the Green Party of Canada.
So Erich, no more pains in the butt on this site. Enough!
Erich, to my way of thinking there is no “hypocrisy” whatsoever for one Fundi bioregionalist to show and voice support for another Fundi bioregionalist. That we are separated by several thousand klicks is beside the point. You supposedly “realo” statists and centralists just don’t get it, do you?
I have not placed any “demands” on anyone. I have put forward a Platform consisting of 30 Planks; they are proposals-for-consideration. As a Leadership Candidate for the GPNS what would you have me do? Kick back and wait for the membership to intuite what my Platform is? Maybe transfer what I have in mind through hug osmosis?
And yes, two of those Planks are as you describe, although as a point of clarification, the proposal to invest in silver bullion is only for 25% of the Party’s cash reserves. If you were in the slightest clued in to geopolitics and what is going on in our world, you just might appreciate the financial sense of that proposal.
Gaia, BTW, happens to be a Green rallying cry. Are you familiar with this ecological notion and what it implies, or is this not taught at Green-Lite/Lib HQ?
Sebastian, if you click “Reply” on the headline of a comment you will be able to nest your reply directly under that comment. You can also do this if you just went straight to the comment area at the bottom of the listing by selecting the particular comment to which you are replying in the “Reply to:” drop down menu just above the “Save” button.
And this is drifting off-topic. I don’t want these comments to degenerate into a slanging match between you and Erich about the leadership of the Green Party of Nova Scotia. What would be pertinent here is comments on the democratic style and actions of the current leadership of the Green Party of Canada.
The state of democracy in the Green Party of Canada and the state of democracy in Canada, are why I’m standing as a nomination candidate against Elizabeth May in Saanich-Gulf Islands. The two are closely related.
Re “nest your reply.” Ah, I see, said the blind man.
Stuart, from your statement: “As they (Canadian Green parties) drifted away from their Green political foundations, they have forsaken grassroots Green bioregional activism. Their focus now is exclusively on the inner machinations of federal council, and the loyal court of supporters surrounding the leader.”
IMO, the underlying premise to support and encourage a true participatory democracy is that of scale. You don’t need to be told this; many new and young Greens who visit here and other Green blogs do. Ergo, my focus on bioregionalism not only supports the geographical stance you have taken, but also, directly your concerns re the state of democracy in the GPC and in the nation.
Further from your statement: “We are faced with a conundrum that ‘politics as usual’ isn’t going to solve. This entire planet and especially those humans and other living creatures being exploited by greedy global corporatism, is crying out for we humans to adopt an eco-centric and democratic Green politics.”
Yes, agreed. So now what? The sorry state of federalist Green politics sends a false and dangerous signal to both supporters of the GPC and to the electorate. It is as you claim that “politics as usual” is a lie (“false” if anyone wishes to put on their dialectical hat) even before it is out of the gate. The institution that contains our so-called parliamentary democracy is the institution of the industrial nation-sate. The analysis must go to the core; if it does not it merely results in the smoke-and-mirrors futility of the last 25 years.
The dawning era of Post-Peak Oil will ensure the collapse of the industrial nation-state. The political challenge, IMO, is to determine if the Green “status quo” can cut it with existing philosophy or if the time has finally arrived to just cut it loose as redundant baggage.
A statement that I scribbled out to-day which will find its way into a statement for my own and immediate political fight may shed further light…or not:
“The political cusp through which and upon which Fundi makes the transition to the new Realo is the philosophical legitimacy of and the organizational necessity for bioregional secession on the NAmerican continent in the era of Post-Peak Oil, i.e. the collapse of industrial civilization.”
Extreme? Sure it is. But these are very, very extreme times.
Thanks for ‘nesting’ your reply, Sebastian.
This is indeed a delicate cusp for our civilisation, and even if we run out of oil there is enough coal on Earth for industrial civilisation to continue on its blindly destructive path. We have to choose now what kind of future we wish to build.
I’m not sure if I understand your last statement. Are you suggesting that Fundis transition to Realos, or that there is a new kind of Realo who is actually a Fundi who recognises the potential for a complete collapse of industrial civilisation?
My head is spinning. Luckily, the future has not yet arrived, so there always is hope that we can collectively come to our senses in time. Be careful what you wish for!
Stuart, it is my understanding that global coal peak, at current consumption levels, is 40-50 years. There is a very interesting debate going on right now within the GPNS re going pro nuke (4th gen and mini’s) or continuing to endorse the export of our black lung to Columbian miners.
Re “last statement” it’s the latter. History has an odd way of unraveling and revealing itself, yes? In other words, current so-called “realos” are a spent historical force…the dust bin awaits. I ask you to consider this claim in conjunction with Cem Ozdemir’s attendance at Bilderberg ’09.
I wish for nothing, I merely observe and perceive what is…and respond accordingly. Something to do with adapt or perish. We are either at post-tipping point or we are not. Action will be a reflection of perception and the choice one makes.
We are in complete agreement, Sebastian. Thank you for raising these issues here and in your own bioregion.
I believe that we have already passed the tipping-point and the climate is irretrievably changing, and this change will accelerate. We must begin to talk about adaptation to climate change, which is why local self-sufficiency and self-determination is so important at this time. Participatory democracy is vital!
Stuart, a very important proviso for you to consider: the economic, ecological, socio-political, etc. consequences of Peak Oil, i.e. 2008, trump the same qualifiers for climate warming/chaos by several decades, post-tipping point inclusive. We have entered onto the energy descent slope. From a Green perspective, it’s a whole new ball game. There will be no gentle prance towards a Green nirvana. The current century of transition will not be pleasant. To blow sunshine up a certain anatomical part of the public, a la the GPC, is a political deceit and ethically non-justifiable.
BTW, the dynamic of democracy diminishes in direct proportion to the size of the constituency, yes?
Sebastian wrote: “BTW, the dynamic of democracy diminishes in direct proportion to the size of the constituency, yes?”
Yes. And I think it is a challenge for the Green Party to develop the most egalitarian and non-hierarchical system possible for debating issues and making decisions – but just wishing for that doesn’t automatically make it happen, you have to develop real, practical methods to realize it.
Brian, I think you may miss my point. By virtue of its mere existence and purporting to represent a federal constituency, paradoxical as it may seem to be, the GPC is not “Green.” It is a pretender, ergo it only stands to reason that its leader, whoever it may be at any given time, is a pretender.
Thank you again, Sebastian. There’s a lot of pretence from the present leader that just her allowing me to stand against her proves how grassroots democratic the party is. Her statements are entirely self-serving make-believe and dissimulation.
There was just a sliver of democracy left by the time the Campaign Committee, on which Elizabeth May and her campaign manager both sit, had finished tightening the rules to give themselves all the power to make decisions as to who can run and how they can apply to be a candidate. Pure Leninism!
It was this tiny sliver of democracy that enabled me to take a stand and enter my name as a candidate. Having done so, I’m being hit with all the dishonest arguments the Campaign Committee To Elect Elizabeth May can muster.
Sebastian, so are you arguing that there should be no national-level Green organization at all?
Brian, I am arguing that the GPC should never have been created in the first place! Its creation was not only a betrayal of Green politics, but an extension of federalist politics in this country par excellence: a group of Central Canadians striking a political mandate/party to know best for all of the regions. If the core principles of decentralization and bioregionalism are gutted, flushed down the memory hole, and limited to empty gestures, then what is left is a sham. The sham has resulted in 25 years of wasted political energy and resources, so ineptly “stewarded” by the “tie-dye mafia” (to quote Stewart Parker’s famous quip). I resigned from the GPBC (and its Executive) in 1986 because, for all intents and purposes, “Green” politics was dead.
And here we are to-day. The global condition dictates, nay “begs,” that the long-belittled Fundi position take ownership of its rightful political and historical legitimacy. For that to occur, the adversaries of the Fundi position must be identified, flushed out and eliminated. There is no better place to start than with the GPC. Fortunately, we have a valuable ally/asset working on behalf of our interests. The name of that ally/asset is Elizabeth May (and her bought patronage appointments). She will accomplish in a short span of three years a great tactical victory: the removal of the GPC from the political playing field.
What I am about to state will likely comprise a dedicated chapter in a draft work-in-progress. Please take note of the date stamp; you heard it here first. The only federal role that the GPC can play will be to crawl on hands and knees (pull the CAP along for good measure) in one to two years time to The Bloc and request a merger. Seventy to eighty percent of the membership will flock to the LPC, where they rightfully belong. The balance gives The Bloc (renamed) national representation, to the horror of the ROC. Bioregionalism, in the era of Post-Peak Oil, comes of age.
The Global Green Charter must be dismantled. The Greens are the only political entity with a global structure and mandate. In this day and age, any globalist affiliation is an obscene political liability beyond words. Ozdemir at Bilderberg ’09 was the watershed. The political naïveté of Greens comes home to roost. If you, and any other federalist Green, choose to be a patsy for a corporatist and globalist agenda is your problem. I choose not to be.
So you’re a Green fundamentalist, but unlike Stuart, you don’t believe there is any hope for the party, and that the whole notion of any organization larger than those based in bioregions is illegitimate. The fact that such an organization would be a complete failure in our current political system matters to you not at all, because, of course, that political system is irredeemably corrupt.
In my experience, the problem with fundamentalists is they tend to waste an inordinate amount of time arguing doctrine, squabbling amongst themselves about gospel, that they get very little useful work done. Worse, wielding their ‘greener than thou’ swords, these zealots drive away potential supporters with their inflexibility and the tedium of endless arguments about political correctness.
Support for the Green Party is at an all-time high, and part of the reason for this can be attributed to the past and current leaders of the party. Contrary to Stuart who doesn’t believe the Green Party should have leaders, I’m very happy about this. Like you, I’d like to see a sea change in the way politics is conducted in this country and the world, but until then, I’m willing to work within the system and accept small progress as being better than no progress at all.
Biological and political ecosystems are complicated, and compromise and the celebration of diversity are Green values.
Brian, re “In my experience, the problem with fundamentalists is they tend to waste an inordinate amount of time arguing doctrine, squabbling amongst themselves about gospel, that they get very little useful work done. Worse, wielding their ‘greener than thou’ swords, these zealots drive away potential supporters with their inflexibility and the tedium of endless arguments about political correctness.”
If the situation and political context (internal and external) are such that “useful work” cannot get done then, you’re right, none will get done. There is no political “demand” for such work. You are also right that that is largely as it has been. I dropped away for 20 years or so because of that.
With the entry onto the Post-Peak Oil energy descent curve (coupled with the post-ecological tipping point), everything changes…everything. You can have the run-of-the-mill GPC members and supporters. Who needs them? They are useless and are as redundant as liberal “Green” philosophy is about to become.
It’s a whole new ball game, Brian. The name of the game is Collapse. First to go will be the physical infrastructure, followed by the institutional infrastructure, the institution of the industrial nation-state inclusive. Any political philosophy that does not incorporate a message of “prepare, prepare and prepare some more” is a lie. The Laws of Thermodynamics finally catch up to the vulgar simplicities Green pie-in-the-sky. Such is our era. Deal with it…or not.
Our Fundi, Black Green “inflexibility” as you call it, will attract in time due interest and support. Why will it attract support? Because it must, that’s why. When dealing with real politics, as opposed to make-believe politics, there is an organizational maxim that always carries the day: What must be done? This maxim, in turn, is a reflection of a clear analysis of The Condition.
The Condition is not pleasant.
Quite right, Brian. Just wishing isn’t going to make it happen. There has to be a thorough and open discussion within the Green Party as to whether its present structure supports its basic principle of participatory democracy, and if not, what restructuring has to take place to enable the party to function as a participatory democracy.
With respect, no party that is, organized in the usual fashion at the federal level can actually be controlled by its members. Michel’s iron law of oligarchy will prevail as it will in any so-called representative ‘democracy’ where you periodically elect others–typically professional politicians who can never remember whether it’s citizens’ votes or dollar votes that count more– to make all your decisions for you. Unless the federal party’s powers are strictly limited–as they should be in any case for ecological reasons– by party and community bodies that are organized at the local and bio-regional level and unless direct democracy prevails at the community level democracy does not have a hope of prevailing over oligarchy, professionalism or corporate dollar votes. It seems that Mr. Smallshaw is laying a trap by asking Stuart to do what is impossible within the system and within the GPC as they are currently constituted. If Stuart’s involvement raises these issues it will have accomplished much.
Thank you John, your comments are a breath of fresh air. I appreciate your taking the long view, positioning the struggle I’m engaged in against the broad background of contemporary society.
John wrote: “Unless the federal party’s powers are strictly limited–as they should be in any case for ecological reasons– by party and community bodies that are organized at the local and bio-regional level and unless direct democracy prevails at the community level democracy does not have a hope of prevailing over oligarchy, professionalism or corporate dollar votes.”
I can envision such an organization, but I think we would then be speaking with many local voices – which might be more organic, ecological and ‘green’ – but would be written off by many as simply a disorganized rabble. Is it better to be pure and Green, or to work within the (flawed) system and actually affect change? Stuart’s arguments to the contrary, I think that is the choice.
Working within the flawed political system is one thing, but trying to become as flawed as the other political parties is another. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I don’t believe in flattering a political system that is destroying the Earth and its inhabitants for the personal aggrandisement of the richest players.
I believe that getting Elizabeth May elected will not change Canadian politics by one iota if she does not practice Green politics. All it will do is co-opt the Green Party into this corrupt, anti-ecological system.
If someone not familiar with the Green Party in Canada was reading some of the above posts they might well get the impression that there are no regionally based Green Parties hence the claims that a bio-regional re-design of the federal Greens is essential.
This however is not the case.
There is a parallel structure of independent provincial Green Parties that have existed for much of the same period as the federal Greens. And it is precisely at the provincial level of government that most of the local resource and municipal decisions importnat to a bio-regional approach are made under our Constitution.
This is the obvious political home and playing field for Greens primarily seeking to advance a bio-regional approach.
Yet there are also international issues that will directly impact on the local reality – like the Climate and Ocean Change crisis- and it is a good thing we have a federal Green Party that can speak at that level.
I would not be involved with the GPC if I did not believe that the GPC could with a steadily growing number of elected MP’s begin the process of transforming Parliament from an institution that seems primarily focused on partisan advantage to one that puts democracy, global ecology and justice as a priority.
Stuart, the Green Party will not be co-opted in Parliament – if this was going to happen don’t you think many of us now running as candidates who have invested one, two and even three decades in Green politics would have already jumped ship to another Party where we had a better chance of winning a seat. Elizabeth herself refused the offer of a Liberal seat and probably a cabinet position. Do you not appreciate how this fact alone undermines much of your accusation against her.
And the few Greens that do cross over to another party from time to time further reduces our “co-option” risk by leaving those who remain loyal as a more solid group in their principled conviction.
Eric, re “Stuart, the Green Party will not be co-opted in Parliament.”
Of course, the GPC “will not” be co-opted in Parliament for two major reasons: 1./ the GPC will never gain seats within the few short years left to its existence, and; 2./ any worthwhile and realistic GPC policy already has been co-opted either politically or by industry/commerce. In short, under current gutted and sanitized liberal philosophy, the GPC has no raison d’etre.
For the better part of a decade the GPC has had the benefit of billions of dollars of free propaganda via the cultural and commercial penetration of the public psyche with the buzz word “Green.” And yet, there is nothing to show for it except 25 years of political futility and the odd Parks Board seat. There has been, and is, something terribly wrong.
As discussed elsewhere in this blog, only 10% of 308 GPC candidates have been nominated. The clock is ticking. Does the bottom finally begin to fall out?
Re “Elizabeth herself refused the offer of a Liberal seat and probably a cabinet position.”
You will have to offer something concrete to substantiate this. All we have is the rumour mill. Personally, having witnessed first-hand the electoral rape of Central Nova, I agree with your statement, but as said, based only on conjecture of possible deals cut and the rumour mill.
Would a legitimate green be offered a Liberal cabinet post? If true-and I would not be surprised if it were– it is hardly complimentary because it means the corporate sector and the Liberals do not see her as a threat to business as usual politics and business as usual economic growth. If she is equally comfortable working with the current political and corporate establishment we can be certain that she will squander her own and the party’s efforts on a doomed effort to advance an ever so pale green aganda while preserving the existing petrochemical civilization and the institutions that created it.
Green parties ignore the history of the provincial and federal NDP but are thus condemned to repeat the history of its failures. As a 19th c. philosopher said the first time it happened it was tragic the second time it plays out as farce. Many forget that the CCF-NDP used to be a lot more democratic than it is currently and it used to stand for something–first perhaps socialism , later social democracy–whereas now it is indistinguishable from the Liberals save that they attract less corporate money. Greens who expect anything from the federal party are just as pathetic as those who expect a revival of a socialist or even a robust social democratic platform in the NDP. It is painful to listen to otherwise intelligent people try to defend the notion that Elizabeth May or the current federal party establishment have anything to offer to offer to serious greens.
I am not the least bit comforted to know that the May led federal greens will consult the public. Even the Conservatives and Liberals do that and we all know who they actually listen to and who thy ignore.
Well stated, John. Ms. May’s past attempts at deal-making have left me puzzled. These include her agreement with Stephan Dion; declaring Blair Wilson as the first Green MP; sniffing around the ill-fated Coalition for a Senate seat; and now offering to become minister of Environment in a Liberal government.
All of these deals seem to promote herself rather than the interests of the Green Party. That’s the Star system, where the few glamourous top personalities get the gold, while the rest of us get the opportunity to worship them. It’s not egalitarian, participatory democracy in which everyone is respected on an equal footing.
So perhaps you are right, John. A small-c conservative, Elizabeth may well be happier in the Liberal Party, where she can fiddle around playing her pale-green environmentalist game, and become accepted as part of the political establishment.
It seems to me that she is taking a huge risk in parachuting herself into this EDA. Unless she wins both the nomination and the election, this ill-fated escapade may well turn out to be her swan-song as the leader of the Green Party of Canada.
To quote a favourite TV series, “this has all happened before, and it will all happen again”.
“cult of personality”…”star system”…yup. Good ol’ Ms. May and Ms. Carr, same ol stuff.
Just wait until the private mudslinging starts from their side. Of course, it won’t come from them directly – but watch out for their employees, or former employees from the WCWC and Sierra club. They’re the kind of people that fight with any bit of broken glass they find on the ground, engage in blackmail without a hint of self-awareness, and then present themselves as angelic new-age idealists to the media.
It will be unfortunately discovered that you have done terrible things. Those discoveries may melt away in the light of day, but in the mean time, they’ll find other mud to sling, and yet more, until you’re simply exhausted with knocking down the lies.
Because you see, they’re simply fated to be the leadership of the green movement – called to the task by god (or gaia) to have lifelong careers in it. The actual votes are a mere formality. If the votes are cast the other way, that’s evidence of corruption of the will of the fates.
The green movement has a problem – too many of its founders have become careerists, and they’ve prevented it from adapting, from becoming fully inclusive. Instead its primary commitment becomes towards the clique of careerists and their friends that have been around the longest. To achieve their *asthetic* and financial goals, rather than to the empirical success of the movement in protecting the environment, or achieving social justice and equality within this generation and between generations.
This is actually best shown in their choice of community – fake ruralism with long commutes. The ultimate extension of suburbanism, but consuming nature more directly, as an asthetic product.
I’m sure the current cycle of green party members has swallowed stories of what the “parkerites” were about. I think you’re in the process now of discovering something closer to the truth. We wanted a fresh start for the green movement, to divorce it from the politics of asthetics and cult-of-personality, and re-focus it on empirical results for environmental goals and social justice.
Would you believe that when Carr originally approached us, we were ecstatically happy about it? But in the initial meetings, we were horrified at the values she actually dwelled – her own career, and empty fake-grin cheerleading like an over-practiced used car salesman. She was selling herself, the asthetics of her sunshine-coast subculture, and only the shallowest policy content.
A long series of cults of personality is all Carr and May have delivered, for two cycles. And so now it turns back to feed on itself again. But maybe after one more cycle, it can be corrected.
Bravo, Bob! It was evident as early as the mid ’80′s that the core of Green political principles would get jammed out on. That it went to the extreme of getting purged and flushed down the memory hole was not to be expected. How are current Greens to know there are core principles without which nothing else happens if they have been spoon-fed a philosophy of Mayism? Again, it was evident 25 years ago that the “movement” was to become the property of NGO environmentalist liberals doing the political conduct that liberals do. The federal party, relative to these core principles, is illegitimate.
Re Parker, “tie-dye mafia” is still one of the best shots ever.
Sebastian, I would question your two comments below:
“…the GPC “will not” be co-opted in Parliament for two major reasons: 1./ the GPC will never gain seats within the few short years left to its existence, and; 2./ any worthwhile and realistic GPC policy already has been co-opted either politically or by industry/commerce. In short, under current gutted and sanitized liberal philosophy, the GPC has no raison d’etre.’
The first point is simply your opinion (and possibly even desire) but the far more likely scenario based on the trends so far is that we are very close to electing our first M.P’s and I think we have a very good chance of doing so in the next election.
As to your second point I am interested in what part of our revenue-neutral Green Tax Shift you think has been co-opted by other Canadian political parties or Industry/Business? What I remember is Michael Ignatieff rejecting this policy concept after a divisive internal battle within the Liberal Party – before, during and after the last election – something which certainly undermined their leader and the party.
Regards, Eric Walton
Eric, yes the first point is my opinion, but based on my observations and analysis of where we currently sit on a historical time line. Yes, also, it is my wish, but again as a reflection of latter observations and analysis. I have not exactly been shy about stating that, IMO, the GPC is a philosophical “Green” pretender, ergo it stands in the way of getting on with where Green politics should have been focused and practised all along: at the provincial, bioregional levels.
As for the second point, please note the qualifiers “worthwhile and realistic.” The GTS was embraced by Dion and turfed by Ignatieff, if on philosophical grounds or political expediency only he (and that faction in the LPC) know. Personally, I do not see the GTS to be “worthwhile and realistic” but do so as a Peak Oiler and one who is convinced that we are post-ecological tipping point, i.e. we have entered a global stage of industrial collapse. Up until now the notions of decentralizatiion and bioregionalism could easily be swept aside as fluff. Now, however, the physical conditions and dynamics are in play to lend these core principles the political legitimacy that they have been short of.
Post-Peak Oil and post-ecological tipping point signal an entirely new ball game. In this new game, the GPC is a redundant spectator; it brings nothing new to the table except the political lie that we can easily make the transition to a Green nirvana minus much pain and socio-political dislocation. Collapse means just that. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a civilization has out-stripped its energy resources and slid off the world stage accordingly.
If a Green Party candidate wins the Saanich Gulf Islands riding in the NEXT election, I will EAT a Green Party lawn sign.
You read it here first!
I have some old 4′x8′ “lawn” signs I would like to recycle,….. I will even provide the red sauce!
Okay Oemissions, I am holding you to that promise. It can be a smaller biodegradable sign for your own safety. Could you post it on Youtube as well to confirm
you upheld your promise. Thanks.
Sebastian, The historical time-line is showing a remarkable surge for the GPC. Are you aware of how many candidates broke the 10% barrier for the first time and qualified for a 60% campaign refund?
Are you aware that Elizabeth’s result in Central Nova was the highest percentage vote attained by a national Green Party candidate under a First-Past-The-Post System – anywhere in the world! And that we were the only political party in the last election to increase the number of actual voters that supported us – the other parties lost voters from their previous election voter numbers even though for some at least the percentage of their vote support went up like the GPC’s.
I appreciate your analysis of collapse, peak oil and tipping points but I think you make two critical mistakes. The first is to assume that you can predict the future with enough accuracy and certainty that there is no use even trying to find a critical path for a soft landing. The fact that many political leaders are in a state of denial is no reason to take a complete opposite “apocalyptic’ point-of-view.
And it is certainly worth trying to reduce the potential for massive social breakdown and the risk of fascist/totalitarian political opportunists seeking to take advantage a widespread disruption. Surely this what we are asked to do if we believe “non-violence” is a key Green Party value.
Eric, the historical time-line that you fall back on is peanuts. So it took 25 years to get a couple of candidates to 10%, all in Ontario no doubt. Big deal. That is not exactly a surge. The federalist Green demographic is maxed out, it can go no further, it spins its wheels. Yesterday’s Nanos had national support at 4.6%. Factoring in the 3.6% differential, support could be as low as 1.0% or as high as 8.2%. Once the election gets underway, the majors pulling away will only bite into that support. The people want a majority. The conscience vote is in trouble, a luxury of bygone days. BTW, the national support of 4.6% is looking pretty grim. Outside of that, it looks like it is finally becoming evident that GPC = GPO. Also, please take into consideration the very real possibility of fielding significantly less than 308 candidates due to candidate blowback/boycott related to last year’s betrayal.
Kindly drop it with the Central Nova nonsense already! May’s 32.0% showing included 10,000 Lib votes, or does this escape your attention? A mere eight months later, via the recent provincial election, that supposed Green support in Central Nova came in at 1.8% average for the five provincial ridings that roughly make up Central Nova. In other words, right back to the federal results of 2006 minus the back room, non-aggression pact.
It is not a matter of predicting the future with a degree of accuracy. The writing is on the wall, certain likelihoods and probabilities are a given; variations on those will vary from region to region. Every political philosophy/party bases its conduct on certain premises, the GPC notwithstanding. I maintain that a political position of a “soft landing” is an opportunistic lie. So we disagree. Time will tell.
Lastly, any attempt “to reduce the potential for massive social breakdown” is juvenile political wishful thinking. Do you have any idea of the magnitude and the forces that are in play? Not only a historical era, i.e. liberal, comes to an end, but the latter is a sub-collapse of the macro collapse of industrial civilization. This is world history that is in play, Eric, not some Green round of appreciations and much-felt and well-intentioned hand-wringing.
Like Monbiot Eric Walton raises the spectre of a fascist or totalitarian takeover if this society / civilization collapses. As we approach collapse we will certainly get that anyway if we do not drastically curtail the powers of national governments. The trend in virtually all western societies is already away from democracy, egalitarianism and civil liberties. Look what national governments resorted to in the 1930′s in the face of a crisis far less serious than the one we are currently confronting.
John, you nail it, i.e. NATIONAL governments! Resistance must come from the regions, from the peripherary, from the hinterland. By virtue of the GPC’s existence, with related centrist and federalist mandate, it lends legitimacy to that very institution.
Provincial Green parties must denounce the globalist Global Green Charter. Such is one of my planks for my leadership bid of the GPNS. Cem Ozdemir’s attendance at Bilderberg ’09 this past May was the watershed.
The political consciousness of most Greens never has been at a premium, however now the stakes for such liability become geopolitical. The Greens are the ONLY political institution with a global structure and mandate. Their political ignorance allows them to be played like patsies on a scale to equal Lee Harvey Oswald and the supposed Al Qaeda.
It is clear to me that there is little point continuing this discussion because positions are so entrenched that even fact and logic is twisted to maintain what clearly appears to be a self-serving point of view.
Rising support for the Greens was across Canada and not just Ontario. How Sebastian would not know this and yet have a fully developed theory about future prospects of the GPC is unbelievable. The Nanos poll was one poll and in contradiction to many others that show Green support rising. It is critical with polls to look at trends and not one-off results. Again surely someone who claims expertise in historical trend analysis should know this.
The attempt to find a critcal path is neither an “opportunistic lie” or an opportunistic truth. It is a compassionate and pragmatic response to reality. It appreciates that we are agents of change even as we are impacted by change. It reflects the view that we must try our best because we cannot know the future with all its feedbacks and permutations. Some humility is in order here.
Of course Sebastian and Stuart are free to advance their agendas but lets be clear there are secondary personal gains from defining reality in their apocalyptic terms because they are running for political office.
We shall see very soon what kind of public support they have.
John, If there are future threats to our current imperfect democracy from serious social disruption then the responsible course of action is to simultaneously oppose these anti-democratic forces at all levels of political organization. To pretend that a federal level political power would not impose its rules on local authorities is naive to the extreme.
Surely you do not believe that national governments will simply close shop and disappear even if green voters no longer support or vote for them. Many First Nations people have done this in the past to make a political point and this has not changed their reality for the better or reduced the power of the federal government. Your strategy of non-engagement would in fact assist potential anti-democratic forces rather than hinder them.
I think in time you will be very surprised by the positive impact of Green M.P’s in advancing ecological sanity, democratic resilience and social justice. In that sense this debate will only be resolved through the passage of time and not on this blog.
In the 19th century a debate took place between Marx and the self-described anarchist Bakunin. The latter masqueraded as a genuine anarchist while secretly planning to have himself placed at the head of the revolutionary movement as dictator with the assistance of 100 of his most devoted acolytes. In the heat of the moment the anarchists–and perhaps not even Marx himself– failed to recognize that Marx and Engels had over the years promoted not one but two different though not necessarily incompatible theories of the state: the state was an agency that allowed the ruling class to exercise coercion over the subordinate classes and the state was a parasitic excrescence which always aspires to to dominate the host society even as it sucks the lifeblood out of its host. This latter theory is actually quite close to the anarchist view. While Marx and the anarchists may have differed regarding how quickly and in what way the class coercive properties of the state should be done away Marx may or may have differed from the anarchists in that Marx believed that the parasitic state should be immediately dismantled or smashed rather than ignoring the parasitic state in the hopes that it would collapse. Contrary to what Eric seems to believe I am not advocating that we simply disengage from the national state. I am saying that we dismantle it as soon as local and bio-regional bodies are strong enough to throw off the parasitic yoke and we should devote our energies to bringing that about as quickly as possible. Eric is advocating that we become part of the oppressive national state apparatus because this is the only realistic course of action given that the national state is unprepared to leave local and bio-regional governments free to construct vibrantly democratic, substantially self-subsistent communities re-embedded within nature. I would always choose an ethical course over a realistic one but in this case I do not have to choose one over the other because choosing to prop up the national government and the unsustainable society behind it is an unrealistic and unethical DEAD end.
John, re “Contrary to what Eric seems to believe I am not advocating that we simply disengage from the national state. I am saying that we dismantle it as soon as local and bio-regional bodies are strong enough to throw off the parasitic yoke and we should devote our energies to bringing that about as quickly as possible.”
Prior to the current socio-political dynamics that will be unleashed via Post-Peak Oil and post-ecological tipping point, any secessionist oriented discussion could easily have been thrown out the window as pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Re my own “secessionism” a point I make over and over, is that I recognize “secession-by-default.” It trumps ethnic-oriented secession, i.e. Quebec, but does not displace it. As I see it, the first to go will be the physical infrastructure, followed by the institutional infrastructure…and it will happen very, very quickly. This is the political opportunity that I argue needs to be prepared for at regional levels, ergo the re-empowerment of provincial Green parties, or whatever their replacements are to be.
One of many blind spots that “contemporary” Greens seem to relish is that Greens do not have a monopoly on ecological philosophy and political organization. I would further argue that the GPC is a relic of a bygone, liberal era. What lurks on the horizon demands that the GPC be relegated as redundant, obtrusive baggage.
Fundi is the new Realo.
Hey,
Stuart, you wrote in part in your intro, “Green politics is about respect and empowerment”. You also go on about “grassroots”.
With as much respect as I can muster, you would not know SGI grassroots if they grabbed you by the ankle, and your campaign is an insult to the members of SGI who have campaigned for many years, often under intense pressure,… e.g. ShunLunn, (where were you?), or the NOTA campaign, (where were you?), and the Liberal/Penn campaign, (where were you and who did you support?, political expediency over principles along with all those other professional enviros?).
Your actions, far from being grassroots and supporting democratic ideals, are instead, a unilateral, self serving fraud. SGI Greens deserve better than this blatant disrespect. At least Elizabeth May had the decency to talk with local members and supporters many months before the decision, and know that her candidacy would be welcome and supported in SGI. That is grassroots action Stuart, not your insulting assumptions.
Hi Andrew,
In answer to your emotional accusations, I was involved in other issues. It’s impossible to respond to every campaign, but I was certainly disgusted about the attempt by some self-important environmentalists to get you not to run in Saanich-Gulf Islands against Briony Penn.
I felt that Briony made a strategic mistake in running for the Liberals, and that the environmentalists trying to get you not to run were either foolish or had their own covert political agenda. So my sympathies were with you. Sorry if I didn’t make it clear at the time.
As for my actions being self-serving and a fraud, I think you have it backwards. The Green Party Council made its decision without consulting the riding, and Elizabeth’s elaborate charade at asking people’s advice was nothing more than pure political dissimulation and fakery.
I stand by my opinion that the Green Party has ignored its grassroots in its search for power. It has become centralised in an attempt to imitate the other parties, and has fallen prey to being dominated by self-serving egotists devoted to their own self-aggrandisement.
I’m not alone in this analysis, and I note that when Elizabeth ‘officially’ announced her intention to run here — possibly Canada’s worst-kept secret — you were about the only other person standing around apart from the media and Elizabeth’s handlers. Such a lack of grassroots support belies your claim that Elizabeth’s campaign is a ‘grassroots action.’
It isn’t grassroots, Andrew. It’s the kind of politics that that disgusts the majority of Canadians. It doesn’t grab their ankles; it sticks in their craw.
Re “…you were about the only other person standing around apart from the media and Elizabeth’s handlers.”
Ouch! I think this is getting just a little too personal. =;-D
Not personal, Sebastian, but a comment on the lack of grassroots support for Ms. May’s campaign and the way in which the Green party is faking its strength. It’s a typical example of how a political party can set up an expensive false backdrop then invite the media to a non-event at which only a handful of party officials are present. Smoke and mirrors — but the public isn’t fooled.
Simply tongue-in-cheek back atcha, Stuart. Winking smiley faces can be either real stupid for adults to insert or attempts at nuance.
The camera angles are always deceptive, doesn’t matter what the party or candidate is. If the shot was ever to zoom out the viewing public would be left scratching its collective head as to the degree of democratic support in front of the mike.
Same same with Renee Heatherington’s media introduction last week. Likely shot in her home with the camera crews outnumbering the few people seated on the living room couch.
The public has yet to clue in to what a small, small and selective game it is.
Stuart, you wrote in part,…”The Green Party Council made its decision without consulting the riding, and Elizabeth’s elaborate charade at asking people’s advice was nothing more than pure political dissimulation and fakery”.
Wrong Stuart. I suggest your paranoid emotions are getting the better of you. We were fully consulted and Council did its due diligence. You clearly know nothing about SGI and our members, and have not bothered to ask or listen to us, but have decided to use the nomination process to further your own agenda of dissimulation and fakery at the expense of us,… shame on you. You are nothing but a political dilitant and a parasite on the backs of SGI Greens, and yes, I AM pissed off with you and all the other keyboard poseurs who freely comment about SGI and expose there own ignorance.
Careful, Andrew. Ad hominem arguments are not allowed on this site. Most often, they are projections of the writer’s inner turmoil and don’t address the issues. So we try not to go there, and if someone persists after a warning, their subsequent comments will be removed.
I suggest that you are being blinded by your inner emotional reaction to my candidacy and cannot focus on the central issue, which is the state of democracy both in the GreenParty and in Canada. Simply ranting at me does not address this issue. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.
We won’t get environmental protection, tackle global warming, achieve a just society, or protect all living species, by playing ego games within the present authoritarian political system, which is too easily captured by the private interests of the multi-national corporations.
We must re-examine and restructure the Green party so that it practices what it is suppose to be preaching, which is a peaceful, equitable, ecocentric and respectful participatory democracy that responds to the needs and wishes of all people. Only then can we say that Green politics is different, and present a model of an improved democracy for all Canadians.
Stuart wrote: “Careful, Andrew. Ad hominem arguments are not allowed on this site. Most often, they are projections of the writer’s inner turmoil and don’t address the issues. So we try not to go there, and if someone persists after a warning, their subsequent comments will be removed.”
Such a threat! We may not agree with you or appreciate the attacks, but nobody has tried to prevent you from speaking, but now that someone expresses what they feel about you, you threaten to use your high and mighty power as owner of this board to shut them down.
I asked before, but you never replied: why aren’t you participating in the Green Party blogsite?:
http://www.greenparty.ca/blog
I don’t allow ad hominem arguments to go on too long, Brian, as they inevitably degenerate into mindless name-calling. So after a warning, I pull those comments. I don’t shut people off from future comments, I just remove any offensive comments after the warning. Does that not seem fair to you?
As for why I’m not blogging on the Green Party web site: I have this one and I like it better. It and the four other sites I’m trying to maintain take up enough of my time to not want to blog anywhere else. There’s only so many hours in the day.
Stuart wrote: “As for why I’m not blogging on the Green Party web site: I have this one and I like it better. It and the four other sites I’m trying to maintain take up enough of my time to not want to blog anywhere else.”
It’s not because you’re in control here and not over there, right? If you’re concerned about a lack of participatory democracy, why not jump into the debate where Greens are congregating rather than sniping from the sidelines? Arguments about participatory democracy might carry a bit more weight if you were, er, participating more.
It seems to me that I’m never going to satisfy your need for me to behave exactly as you want me to, Brian, nor should I even have to try. If you can’t accept that, too bad.
Stuart you can believe and say whatever you want about the Green Party. But when you attack the Green Party and Elizabeth May for failing to uphold the party’s principles of participatory democracy without making an effort to participate in that process, it makes those of us who’ve been trying to build the organization wondering about your goals and motives.
I think you’re defining the ‘grassroots’ as those that think like you, everyone else is not. And I suspect you’d rather see us fail than succeed as something that doesn’t fit your ideal of what the Green Party should be
Briony’s response to Elizabeth’s running in(to) this riding was published in the local newspaper.
“Where were you Elizabeth, when I was running?”
That may not be word for word accurate in quoting but what is meant is obvious.
Andrew has often said: Vote from your heart. We did. We voted for Briony.
This next election, if Briony’s choice, Renee Heatherington wins the nomination, then many of us will vote for her, or, NDPers will go back to vote for an NDP candidate.
Perhaps Elizabeth met with people here before Briony introduced Renee to us. We were very impressed with her.
Actually, No. I just remembered that after meeting Renee I immediately emailed Elizabeth to say that we had an awesome candidate to represent the concerned citizens of this riding.
Remember that we want to see Elizabeth in the House but we don’t want her to run here where there are oodles of green minded people in every party.
Many people are disappointed that Elizabeth has done this and it won’t attract them back to the Green Party!
Oemissions wrote: “Briony’s response to Elizabeth’s running in(to) this riding was published in the local newspaper.
“Where were you Elizabeth, when I was running?”
Asking her to run for the Green Party.
But Briony thought she’d have a better chance with the Liberals and a lot of Greens (and greens) decided to suspend their skepticism and take a chance on her conviction that under Dion’s leadership, the Liberals might finally do something besides talk about the environment.
Briony came close, but thousands of NDPers voted for the non-existent NDP candidate, irate that their candidate had been ‘outed’ by the Liberals. Dion has been replaced as leader of the Liberals, and the only reference to the environment I’ve heard from Ignatieff is, in reference to the tar sands:
“This is where a chill falls over the room because everybody expects me to say that they’re terrible and we’ve got to shut them down. Absolutely not… and for once the word ‘awesome,’ that we overuse all the time, is truly what you feel when you’re there. It is awe-inspiring. The capital investment, the sheer size of this thing, the fact that there are 100 years of deposits…”
So now we have a fantastic individual prepared to run in this riding if she’s nominated: smart, knowledgeable, articulate, nationally prominent, good with the media, sterling credentials in her efforts to protect the environment.
And at the same time, we have a Green from a grassroot who’s doing his best to bring her down, apparently disgruntled because she’s too effective in the media and too much of a leader, and because he feels that the party has strayed from its belief in participatory democracy, even though he hasn’t bothered to participate in this riding at all until now, and from what I can tell, not much in the riding he lives in either.
And we also have the greens of other parties, who readily acknowledge May’s strengths, wish her well, want the Green voice to be heard, but don’t want her to run in a riding widely recognized for the strength of its green convictions, because…. because….
Well, maybe you can help me out here Oemissions, because I fail to understand.
Oemissions, re Renee Heatherington being an “awesome candidate” I guess our mileage differs on what constitutes “awesome.” I, and many others, have seen the vid that was released last week. The commentary around the personality in the vid (which is the only image the voting public will ever get to meet) seems to be along the lines of soft, much work to be done, naive, etc.
Having said that, I would think the perfect choice for the Libs to toss in against May.
Brian: Look at the numbers.
Lunn will get about 20,000 to 28,000 votes.
Libs and NDP will get????
Last time Greens got 6500 or so.
How can they surpass the votes for Lunn?
Do you think about 15,000 Conservatives are going to vote for Elizabeth instead of their cherished little Mr. Lunn?
Ah, but you forget that Liz May has an ace up her sleeve called Blair Wilson, that Green stalwart of ecological stewardship! Will he not be asked to speak at one of her rallies? West Van is just a spit away.
Oemissions: Sure, let’s look at the numbers. Last time the Greens got 6742 votes, with a minimal campaign, and lots of Green and green-leaning NDP voters voting Liberal to support Briony.
This time around with a much bigger, better-organized campaign, were green-leaning Liberals and NDPers to vote Green, together with fiscally conservative Conservatives I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to think that Elizabeth has a shot at it.
Lunn has only ever had a slim majority in this riding and has only won because the opposition is more evenly divided here than in most other ridings. On top of that, since the last election, Lunn has been demoted for flubbing the Natural Resources portfolio, and probably was only made Minister of Sport because demoting him right out of cabinet would have been tantamount to admitting that his appointment was a mistake in the first place, and we know how Steve doesn’t like admitting that he was wrong!
So no, I don’t think May winning here is such a long shot at all – but it will take people like yourselves deciding to vote for who and what they really believe in.
Now about the NDP. I go to their meetings. I am a Brown person,meaning, I would like a union of the Red, Green and Orange and smaller parties, such as CAP to pull together into one consolidated piece.
I know that some of their KEY people voted for Briony and supported her.
Dr. Margaret Fulford in her introduction to Briony at the acclamation meeting said: “Well, you may wonder what an old prairie socialist like me is doing up here welcoming a Liberal candidate…..”
So Briony damn near won that election and people pointed their fingers at the Greens more than at the NDP .Because of that robotic call on Thanksgiving Monday NDP votes were excused.Others say that diehard NDPers voted for a no show candidate, and ofcourse picked up some funding by doing so.
I really doubt that a whole lot of NDPers will vote for Elizabeth as they did with Briony.
Briony had a big record of activity here and was 3 generations a Saanich/Gulf Islander.
They will NOT appreciate Elizabeth parachuting in and they will probably go back to supporting their own candidate.As I said, should Renee win the nomination, some will vote for her because of Briony’s recommendation. If Briony said this time: Yes! Vote for Elizabeth,they might but she has not.
If Renee does NOT win, well, its another roll of the dice. You will have to ask Briony if she will vote for Elizabeth.
My bet will be, if Kit Spence is the Lib candidate that it will be roughly: one third, each way and Lunn maintaining his 20 some thousand votes and maybe the NDP in second.
Sorry to say it but I believe this is the way it will go.
And Stuart, as valid as his points are, will not win over Elizabeth.
Regarding the NDP: Well, I come from old-time Saskatchewan CCF roots myself and know some influential people in the party; some of them will vote NDP no matter what, others have told me they are very impressed with Elizabeth and would consider voting Green because of her.
Regarding finger-pointing at the Greens by Briony: Yes, it’s true, some people could not overcome their skepticism about the likelihood of Briony turning the Liberals into a green party – can you blame them? In hindsight, don’t they look correct? But considering the number of Greens that did vote for Briony, and the number of Liberals that apparently stayed home because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a green Liberal, I think finger-pointing is, at best, ungrateful.
Regarding the current nominees and the coming election: Though I think she was mistaken, I think Briony could make a solid case for supporting her in the last election – it’s absolutely true that the Liberals had a shot at forming government, and under Dion, you could reasonably argue that the Liberals had finally seen the light and would take real action on the environment. Furthermore, it is also true that the Liberals have a much better organized party machine to help a candidate get elected.
The situation now is utterly different. Briony is not running, she’s endorsing a nominee who seems like she might be capable, but certainly doesn’t have credentials that match her own. The Liberal party is completely changed; Dion is not only gone, everything he stood for has been completely discredited in the party, and they are now led by a man that is arguably more of a hawk than Stephen Harper, thinks tar sands development is great, and was as ready as the Conservatives to run up a deficit while bailing out banks and auto companies.
How can a green possibly vote Liberal now, and especially in this riding when Elizabeth May might be running?
Regarding the validity of Stuarts points: They aren’t.
I beg to differ.
How can a green possibly vote Liberal now?
I asked that myself at a meeting to introduce Renee.
The answer: not from me but from Briony and Renee: take a look at the proposals and recommendations that were accepted and made a priority at the recent Liberal convention in Vancouver. That environmental platform was created and submitted by a team from the Saanich GI riding, including Renee and Briony.
They believe that the grass roots members in the Liberal party will be strong.
Read the comments that were posted on En Famille prior to the Convention.Read the pro[posals and debates and discussions.
My personal take on Ignatieff: I smelled an “old boy” the first time I saw him (on TV) during that Liberal Convention when Dion won the leadership race.
Last year he ,Iggy, voted against a Bloc private members bill to mandate labelling for GE products and food.He said nothing about the horrendous suffering in Gaza this winter, other than, “Hamas needs to stop throwing rockets” and then those stupid remarks on the Tarsands left me whirling.
But I, take the Dylan dictive: “Don’t follow leaders… and watch those parkin metres.”
That’s j Old World hype.
Power is with the individual MPs and the people meeting, discussing,potlucking,dancing singing and having some differences of opinion yet sensing the best solution.
I actually find all this party business very frustrating.
To conclude,the only person in Canada that I know who would make me feel glad to have as a PM is David Orchard.
And yes, I know how the Libs dealt with him, and before that the Conservatives.
You know that song: We can get there faster if we all work together…”?
Hard to do when everyone is saying: Vote for ME!
Well Oemissions, if you can hear all of that talk and see all of those actions and still believe, your faith is very strong indeed.
To get real change in this country we really need to have electoral reform, something that I know Briony supports. But when I’ve talked to the policy people within the Liberal party, they have said flat out that they do not support it. And of course they wouldn’t, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. And if they can so effectively co-opt environmentalists, they have absolutely no reason to do anything to protect the environment beyond paying it lip service. ‘See, look at these wonderful resolutions we’ve passed, and all of the wonderful environmentalists within our party – we’re green.’
Watch out for those parking metres….
So Brian, you want me to vote for a party that doesn’t even have 1 seat in the House of Commons?
Like I have said, the Conservatives will rule again . They got 44.4 percent of the vote in BC in 2008.
Have the Greens had a run on memberships since the announcement of Elizabeth running here?
I do NOT have the patience to wait for Greens to win seats. It will take too long.
I donot know how I will vote yet in the next election but I know it will Not be for a Conservative candidate and it will not be for a Green candidate.
And you know what else, I am not oppossed to the maritimers hunting seals.
And who is Joan Russow now supporting?
I really have nothing further to contribute here.
I am fed up with all this volleyball amongst progressive voters.
The provinicial election was another fiasco. The NDP and Carole James behaved ridicuously regarding the carbon tax which I think should be tripled.
The Coalition was promising and now its a beer parlour brawl.
People are suffering more from lack of housing, employment,and public transit.
Sustainability is entering into the mainstream .
The Green party has been a catalyst, probably, but so was the Whole Earth Catalogue.
Meanwhile, here on Salt Spring Island, where I have resided for over 20 years, we have an enormous traffic problem and I see few Greens and members of the Conservancy using the bus.
They will revolt if parking meters are put in downtown Ganges!
Two things, Stuart. Stick to your guns re Andrew Lewis. He is not interested in dialogue. His comments are pure ad hominem. Second, just in passing, how naive do you have to be to think that you could ever win the federal Liberals to a genuinely green agenda? It would be hard enough to win the Greens to such a position–a position that would necessarily mean saying good bye to our corporate dominated, growth oriented society. If you did not support Penn’s quixotic flirtation with the Liberals that in itself shows a certain political maturity.
“quixotic”?
Had to look that one up.
It means, John R, which way is your finger pointing?
Oemissions: You’re right, the Greens don’t have a single seat in the House of Commons, and the Conservatives got more than four times the votes of the Green Party’s 9.4% in BC in the last election. Given those odds and our electoral system, sensible people would just give up.
But you are also right about what became of the Coalition and how the NDP behaved in the last election, and to me, voting for those parties is more of a wasted vote because with any of them in power it is just more of the same. ‘Sustainability is entering into the mainstream’, but so far I’m seeing a lot more talk than action – look what happened to the Liberal green conversion when the economy went bad, and look at the NDP working so hard to prop up auto companies. I’m idealistic enough to want a better world for my kids and am willing to take a chance on voting for a party that represents a possibility for real change.
I’m also fed up with the ‘volleyball amongst progressive voters’, and in fact dropped out of politics entirely for a few years when it seemed like our efforts were more divisive than constructive, especially here on Saltspring. But with the possibility of Elizabeth May running in this riding, I’m being lured back in – it’s still going to be an uphill struggle against this ‘we don’t have a seat, so why should we be given a seat’ way of thinking, but the way I look at, a vote for the old-line parties is a vote for the status quo, so I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Your constant harping that the GPC is centralized or top-down just like the other major parties shows that you really have no comprehension of how the GPC differs radically in structure and practise from other parties. Since I wouldn’t presume you to be a liar, I must assume that you are profoundly ignorant of how the party functions due to being disconnected from the grassroots Green Party members you purport to represent.
The GPC is the ONLY major federal party to:
- give away 2/3 of the federal per-vote funding directly to ridings and provincial/regional organizations for local activity, with essentially no strings attached
- allow an open nomination process in EVERY single riding, not reserving any ridings for top-down candidate appointment by the leader – even the leader’s own chosen riding!
- provide the leader to attend local riding fundraiser events for FREE – not charging the riding any set speaker’s fee, or even for the leader’s travel or accommodations, and then letting the riding keep 2/3 of the funds raised
- allow local ridings to choose the topic or content of the leader’s speech, and allow the leader to personally and candidly answer any and all questions, not only from members but from any person present
- feature a leader who is elected by a direct vote of every single member, with no delegate selection system subject to backroom manipulation
- make member-approved policy resolutions BINDING on the Leader and Cabinet
- share with ridings a portion of any funds raised by the central party via the riding’s page on the central party website
- pay out to ridings (via revenue sharing) more per member than the ridings pay to enroll members
- allow candidates to publicly disagree with official policy, so long as they also explain what the party policy is
Each of these significant measures empowers the grassroots in ways that other parties would find unthinkable. The central party also provides training and support to local ridings through events and tours at nominal or no cost to ridings, and regional organizers are available to provide on-demand support for free. The party even arranges discount bulk copies of the leader’s books for additional local fundraising. The party does not in any way restrict who can be elected to or serve on local riding organizations and does not “tax” locally-raised donations by even a single dollar. Some of the other major parties require ridings to turn over some or even all of their locally-raised funds to the central party; some even don’t allow EDAs to have their own local bank accounts.
In light of all of these significant and unique supports and freedoms that the party provides the grassroots, it is quite false to state that the GPC is somehow centralized or top-down in a way that even vaguely resembles how other parties are organized.
Perhaps your misapprehension that the party has “forsaken grassroots Green bioregional activism” is because the purpose of the central party isn’t to be active in the grassroots at the bioregional level – it is to EMPOWER the local groups who are or can be active at the grassroots. Although it isn’t perfect in this respect, the GPC does provide real support to such efforts. It is not the role of the central party to be active in your riding – they can’t do it for you – that is the job of the EDA. The party’s role is to make that easier for YOU, and that’s what they do.
No longer is the GPC a small group of activists working on various political causes; now it is a national framework which can support any number of small, local groups of activists in political activity. I consider that evolution to be a GOOD THING.
The GPC does not differ in structure from the other political parties — that’s the whole point of my suggesting that it needs to be restructured to offer a participatory model of an improved democracy to Canadians.
What you are claiming to be structural differences are merely procedural concessions that pay only lip service to participatory democracy, in which decision-making resides at the grassroots level.
Thank you for explaining that so well.
As it happens, I ran into a fellow Green in the supermarket the day before yesterday, a person who was very active in Victoria for years before moving to Saltspring about five years ago. She has no recollection of Stuart being involved in anything over there.
I’ve already responded to you on this, Brian. I’m beginning to suspect that you may not be voting for me in the nomination contest, and that you are simply trying to waste my time by continually attacking me on this site. So no more responses from me to you, Brian. Enough already! You are opposed to me, and are going to stay that way.
Well you are correct in assuming that I’m not going to vote for you!
But no, I’m not trying to waste your time, I just don’t want to let incorrect statements go unchallenged.
I’m beginning to suspect that you would rather debate in this forum than elsewhere because you control this one.
Well Brian, I promised not to reply to you, but I have been meaning to respond to a previous comment of yours about control, so call me a liar, but here it is:
Yes, this blog takes me out from under the control of the party, which would be the case if I blogged on the party’s web site. It returns control to me, which is the main point in what I’m saying about the democratic structure of the Green Party.
Conventional, ‘top-down’ politics is all about control. It’s about disempowering the electorate and moving control into the hands of a ruling élite, who can than pursue any self-serving project or policy and impose it upon the electorate, often policies that enslave people and destroy ecosystems and living species.
The struggle for democracy has always been a struggle against the ability of the ruling élite to impose control either by force, or as is the current situation, by propaganda and manipulation through the corporate media, with force being kept back as an ultimate weapon. The upcoming Olympics will show us how covert the use of force will be if social unrest were to occur.
It’s all about control: the control exerted by the party’s federal Council and its Campaign Committee in deciding that the party’s goal in this election is is to elect the leader and where that person should run; in setting and changing the nomination procedure many times; and getting the EDAs to transfer control of their candidate selection process to this central committee.
So while you accuse me of wanting control of my own activities — to which charge I readily plead ‘guilty by reason of self-determination’ — you neglect to consider the control games being played by Ms. May and the party apparatchiks in trying to impose their will on at least one unwilling member.
In your writings, you seem to indicate that you believe a national Green Party structure should not even exist – that simply by existing, it somehow taints or retards the local, grassroots spirit of Green politics. In that belief you are simply wrong, because the mere fact of the GPC’s existence provides a number of very powerful tools for anyone wanting to organize in their riding or “bioregion”. Below are just a few examples:
1. Local Green activists can (for free*) become party members, form an electoral district association (again for free), and have virtually unlimited fundraising powers. ALL money raised locally can be kept and spent locally however the EDA chooses, with no restrictions whatsoever from the central party. In fact, once registered, the Green Party provides an annual subsidy which can amount to several thousand dollars; *the per-member portion actually exceeds the per-member annual fee. This fundraising power is better than that of an NGO, since it grants significant tax benefits to donors; it is better than that of a charity, since it does not require the EDA to be non-partisan or apolitical (and has higher tax benefits for donors)
2. An EDA is a registered local non-profit organization, which can get you discounts on various products and services such as room bookings, mailbox rental, or countless other needs; becoming an EDA is the fastest, cheapest way to become a registered non-profit
3. The party provides credit-card processing and receipting for local ridings or campaigns which don’t have their own account set up for a very modest fee
4. The party provides (for free) sign, literature, and advertising templates created by professional designers which can be modified and used at local printers; these are created to promote your local organization or address topics of concern, not merely for electioneering
5. The party provides (for free) web-hosting for riding contact & event information and candidate/member blogging
6. The party has group liability insurance which covers all EDAs up to $5 million each for the unbelievably low cost of $50 each per year; for an independent “grassroots” group to get similar coverage would either be impossible or prohibitively expensive, and nowadays (if you’ve actually done any grassroots organizing lately) it is often impossible to rent a site or venue or table at a festival – or even book a public space, like a park – if your group does not have sufficient liability insurance
7. Being a candidate for a national party gives you a far more prominent platform in local media coverage. Many “all-candidates” type events or news features will minimize or ignore independents or “fringe party” candidates; simply being a representative of the federal Green Party usually guarantees coverage equitable to (if not equal to) that provided the other major parties for you to bring forward local issues
In short, there are many ways in which being a member of a federally-registered party gives you a head start on local, grassroots organizing. And trying to do so via a totally decentralized ad-hoc party or a loose confederation of regional parties has proven to be extremely difficult. All of the registered “fringe” or minor parties have extremely limited capacity at the local level and can provide almost no support to their grassroots supporters. A recent GPC offshoot along the lines you seem to favour, the “Peace and Ecology Party,” failed to even register as a federal party because they could not garner the signatures of 250 electors to be members – despite offering free membership! Getting 250 people to sign up as members of your party is a lot harder than getting 100 to sign off on your nomination form. It takes at least a modicum of central organization to achieve and maintain the procedural requirements of a registered party. If you can’t do that, you can’t offer the many advantages to local, grassroots action which come from membership in a registered association.
Of course, to argue that you know better than our Leader about representing or organizing the grassroots is comical. She literally wrote the book on effective grassroots organizing: http://tinyurl.com/og6wy8 . (I’m tempted to say she’s forgotten more about grassroots organizing than you’ve ever known, but you’d probably try to turn that around against her, or just dismiss it as some kind of personal attack on you. So we’ll pretend I didn’t say that.)
Wrong, Erich. I’ve never stated that a national Green Party structure should not even exist. One should exist, but that it should be structured as a national confederation of activist, ecocentric, bioregional, Green Party groups that run candidates in national, provincial, and local elections.
You have listed the Green Party’s attempt to encourage local EDA activity, but after a quarter of a century, the centralist approach to Green politics has failed. There are not enough active local members to keep most Green Party EDAs going. Except for a few strong EDAs, the Green Party of Canada is an empty shell at the grassroots level. That’s why the focus on getting just the leader elected.
What you are so proud of is just smoke-and-mirrors from the party leadership to convince people that this is a genuinely grassroots national political party. In this, the NDP is way ahead of the Green Party. The NDP is strong at the grassroots; the Green party is not. I want to change that by replacing the existing ‘top-down’ structure with a participatory one that empowers and not disempowers, Green Party members.
Or maybe the opposite is true Stuart; the Green Party was fringe for all those years because we lacked the organizational structure to build strong EDAs.
Brian is essentially correct. The “centralist” approach has only been attempted by Greens over the last 6 years, and it is precisely over that time that the party has achieved a strong LOCAL presence in dozens of ridings (as evidenced by our unprecedented 41 ridings over 10% vote last fall). Prior to that, two decades of loose confederacy like what you describe accomplished almost precisely nothing in 95% of Canadian communities.
What I am describing is certainly not “smoke and mirrors” from the party leadership. Since founding the Barrie EDA early in 2004, the Barrie Greens have raised – locally – over $125,000 in hard cash and spent – locally – that same amount on local, grassroots activity. This is far more than we could have raised were it not for the existence of the central party and the support and training they have provided, mostly for free. I know this because, in the 5 years prior to our founding, I was already active in the local small-g green movement outside the party, with far less organizational success.
Since we ran a full 308-candidate slate in 2004, if every riding had been as active as Barrie, that would mean about $40 million worth of LOCAL activities. Of course, many ridings have not been so active, although some are even more active than Barrie.
In any riding where this has not happened, it is entirely the failure of the local, grassroots people to organize themselves and take advantage of what the central party has to offer. You can’t push a rope, and you can’t blame the central office failure to act at the local level.
The NDP is more organized than the Greens at the grassroots for three reasons:
1. They have been in existence as a movement and party for decades longer than us.
2. They were centrally organized from the very beginning.
3. They are attached to a labour movement which predates them by decades and is, by definition, both locally and centrally organized.
The Green movement does not have the organizational history of the labour movement, and the GPC doesn’t have the longevity of the NDP. It’s thus no surprise (nor shame) that we aren’t as locally organized yet as they. But don’t doubt it will happen, whether you are a part of it or not.
Congratulations on your efforts in Barrie, Erich, and I mean that genuinely. But yours is one of the few strong EDAs. In Victoria, one of the strong Green areas, the EDA could not even get a quorum for an AGM recently. I was one of the five or six people that showed up.
You’re a centralist, Erich. But many people are rejecting the old centralist political parties, and are even turning their back on the whole electoral process. I’m pointing to the future, while you are pointing to the past.
I believe that the centralist version of the Green Party has failed, and that only by becoming a genuinely participatory democracy will the party ever grow in support to be able to protect the environment and living species, or ameliorate the effects of global warming.
Elizabeth May and the centralists aren’t going to get us there.
You are simply wrong, and I hope you’ll stop making such mistaken statements or I’ll have to assume you are being deliberately misleading.
Things are not merely “procedural concessions” if they are enshrined in our party constitution and by-laws. By definition, those are structural differences. Ways in which we are UNLIKE other major parties (and thus unique) which stem from our constitution and bylaws include:
EVERY unit in the party is ultimately accountable to the membership, not to the leadership [article 6.1]
There are no restrictions on EDAs (or other party units) signing up new members (most other parties only allow direct sign-up at the national level, and restrict the ability of local units to recruit members through controls on “official” membership forms etc.) [by-law 1.2.1]
EDAs have the essentially unconditional right to choose their own candidates by their own procedures – this is unique among major parties, as all the rest reserve the right for the leader or central party to appoint some or all candidates, or screen out potential candidates based on secret, internal criteria with no right to appeal. [by-law 5.1.1]
EDAs have total sovereignty over the funds they raise and how they spend their money. This is certainly unique among major parties, and very different from how the others are structured. [by-laws 8.2, 8.4]
Party policy is set by the votes of the members in general meeting, and the election platform presented by the Leader and Cabinet must coincide with this member-approved policy. This, again, is completely opposite to how the other major parties operate. [by-law 6.5]
What is also conspicuous, by its absence, is the almost total lack of any mechanism allowing the central party to coerce local EDAs or candidates in their spending, messaging, or any other local operational decisions. Obviously there is no article or by-law to cite since we don’t have such rules. The ability of the Leader to deny a potential local candidate is very constrained, and stems from the Elections Act. We are unique in having put heavy restrictions on the ability of the Leader to exercise this prerogative [by-law 5.2]
The fact that you are either unaware that these are structural differences, or don’t even understand the difference between structural and procedural matters, further reduces my respect for the validity of your views on these issues.
Where the structure of the GPC resembles (superficially) that of the other parties is mainly in areas where it (and they) must conform with federal election law, such as in the border of EDAs or the rules around money transfers or candidate nominations, or having a specific person in the role of “leader”. In those respects, we really have no choice. (However, I don’t find the Elections Act rules particularly objectionable or un-green).
Over the past 6 years, our EDA has made countless decisions at the local, grassroots level about things like what messaging to focus on, how to organize, what activities to undertake, what local groups to support or partner with, etc. NEVER have any of those been questioned, hindered, or overturned by the central party. When it comes to local, grassroots activity, the central party sometimes provides support but never gets in the way. Have they every stopped you from doing something you and other grassroots greens wanted to accomplish at the local or regional level? In my experience, they’ve always been either permissive or supportive. Nevertheless, it is always up to us at the local level to actually organize and take action – as it should be. What’s been stopping you?
You and I are not going to agree, Erich, so there’s no point in my trying to convince you. You and Brian Smallshaw must rest your cases, or develop your extensive writings on this site into a book. Whatever, comments on this posting are now closed. Thanks to everyone who took part.