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’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.