Pathetic. We get the government and dictator we deserve. Too few of us are trying to raise the red flag of reason. Someday, the oblivious will wake up and it’ll be too late.

Pathetic. There is nobody standing up for democracy, good government, equality, or freedom any more. At any level of government.

Apathetic

Voter turnouts are dropping across the nation (59% nationally, 41% in Alberta, municipal elections in the teens). As more and more Canadians tune out, that gives the parties more licence to keep doing what they are doing. That results in more voters realizing that all politicians are the same and their vote is pointless which results in more staying home on voting day.

Things are going to get much worse before they get better.

Pathetic.
This really angers me. The more this trend continues, the more I want to get into politics to change the machine. Status quo no more.

Just to set the record straight: the Green Party has absolutely NOT changed its constitution in order to avoid a Leadership Contest. While there are currently discussions regarding a perceived need to change by-laws related to the mandated 4-year Leadership contest, there have been no changes made to those by-laws. There are currently many within the Green Party who are trying to ensure that, should changes be contemplated, that the process be a thorough and consultative one. But at present, there have been no changes.

@Steve – yes, the change has not been made *YET* but there’s little doubt it will happen. The process has already not been “thorough and consultative”. On Nov 28, Council approved a Feb 2010 “special meeting” to make this change (and apparently has taken the position that it has the authority to limit members to considering ONLY this one resolution). And people on the CC have known about it before that. So supporters of the change have had several months advance notice to start organizing support.

Why has the general membership not been notified? This ensures there will be no opposition to the change, since there will be no time to organize against it (and I can only assume that Council plans to ignore the constitutional notification requirements, since a Feb 2010 meeting is impossible if they did follow them). That’s assuming there is a meeting at all — it appears that they might just go with a mail-in ballot (which I take as unconstitutional), without any debate at all.

My point remains — the Greens are getting creative to ensure the leader doesn’t have to face the membership. As I said, democracy appears to be an inconvenience to all of Canada’s federal parties.

Greg, thank you for taking the time to follow-up with regards to my previous comment. I have been very plugged-in to what’s been going on with regards to the “February 2010 Special General Meeting” resolution adopted by the Green Party’s Federal Council in late November 2009. In fact, I have written to Federal Council for an explanation.

Just to clarify a few things: first, the Resolution simply authorizes that a Special General Meeting be held to vote a proposed by-law amendment. There has been no authorized text provided for such an amendment at this time, but given the nature of the Resolution which this Resolution replaced, it would appear that an amendment may pertain to the requirement for a 2010 Leadership contest. Certainly, I believe that it does, but I was not present at the Federal Council meeting, so I can not say for certain. Based on the Minutes available to GPC Members, it seems likely that the text for any proposed amendment has not yet been compiled.

So, while I agree that there may be “plans in the works” which may facilitate changing the 2010 Leadership Contest which is currently required by my Party’s Constitution through its by-laws, it is not a “done deal” as you’ve presented it in your blog. Certainly, I understand that this item will be revisited by the Federal Council of the Green Party of Canada again at its next meeting, which is happening this Sunday night.

There has been some suggestion that, due to Notice requirements found in the Constitution and its by-laws, that a February 2010 Special General Meeting can not occur. I think you’ve alluded to that in your comments, and have suggested that the GPC appears ready to violate these clauses. I think it’s premature to suggest that’s the case. Certainly, I’ve brought the notice issue to Council’s attention, and I expect that it will be one of the several issues they’ll be addressing at their next Council meeting.

So, returning to your original post, which I understand does include some of your own personal opinion with regards to the Cons’ reasons for shutting down parliament, and the NDP flip-flop (opinions which I share, btw, but they are just opinions), I believe that your blogpost remains factually incorrect with what you’ve written about the Green Party of Canada. The Constitution has not been changed to avoid a Leadership vote; nor have any of the Constitution’s by-laws. It hasn’t happened…yet.

I would agree that there are elements within the Green Party which do want to change the by-laws to remove the 4-year requirement for a Leadership Contest, and to instead adopt a “Leadership Review” requirement, much as the other major political parties have (to review the performance of the Leader within x number of months of a federal election). Currently, the Greens are the only Party which has a fixed term for its Leader. It has been suggested that a fixed term may be problematic in the era of constant elections readiness brought on as a result of minority government after minority government.

The Green Party hasn’t changed anything yet. A Leadership Contest is still currently required to be held in 2010.

Steve, let me see if I can rival the length of your response …lol… there is no uncertainty as to the subject of the proposed by-law change, only what the exact language of the motion will be (and this will remain uncertain until it is adopted, since members can amend it at the general meeting anyway). Let’s be clear: the by-law amendment proposes to change the leader’s term, which extends Elizabeth May’s term indefinitely and cancels the 2010 leadership race (which otherwise must be done by Aug 2010, 4 years after the leader was last elected).

Draft language has been put forward by the Campaign Committee (which is itself a little odd, as it has no special authority over governance issues) — it changes section 2.1.4.2 replacing “except the Leader who shall serve a four year term or until a successor is elected,” with “except the Leader who shall serve until a leadership endorsement ballot is announced. An endorsement ballot will be held within 6 months after a general election.” This language has not been officially adopted by Council, nor does it need be. By-law amendments can be brought forward by any unit of the party comprising 5+ members or simply any 5 members in good standing. So this by-law change doesn’t need to come from Council; they may or may not choose to put forward this motion. And even if they did, it would still be subject to revision by members at the general meeting.

Another difficulty is that Council is contemplating allowing only this one and only one motion to be considered at a special general meeting. But Council is not granted the authority by the constitution to limit what members can and cannot consider. If the members want to consider other motions, it is their call, as authority rests with them during a general meeting, not with Council (whose authority exist only between general meetings).

Complicating matters further are the notification requirements. Since Council has no authority to prevent members from bringing forward motions at a general meeting, it must allow 30 days for motions to be submitted, following by a standard 60-day notification. And notice of the proposed by-law amendment must be included when the meeting is announced (so the by-law change cannot simply be moved from the floor, which they wouldn’t want to do anyway since that would require a 2/3 vote to pass). So a general meeting where motions are considered requires at least 90 days notice total, which pushes it well past, Feb 2010 which is what Council approved on Nov 28.

Yes, the Greens are the only party with a fixed leader’s term. The Greens are also the only major party without an MP, i.e. without an elected caucus to act as a check on the leader. Without a term limit, the GPC leader becomes an unaccountable leader-for-life position (complete with salary & benefits). And a leader-for-life scenario is exactly what the proponents of this change want — the CC, the current leadership, and prospective future leadership candidates (specifically Adriane Carr and Frank de Jong). It’s also a bit ironic that the party that “does politics differently” now uses the practices of the establishment parties (which do have elected caucuses) to justify their actions, from changing the leader’s role to changing how nominations are conducted.

The history of the proposed by-law change is this: Carr raised the idea on the CC last fall, then a couple weeks later de Jong proposed a similar change, and the CC seized upon it (but changed de Jong’s text) because they didn’t want the leader to have to face the membership while the party was pouring money into Saanich. But it’s a manufactured crisis since (a) the likelihood of a summer election is next to nil (only 1 of 40 federal election took place in Aug, for example), and (b) if EM wants to remain on, there will be no credible challenge. In fact, there are as many benefits to EM’s chances in SGI if there was a summer leadership contest as there are potential risks (in fact, *more* work might be done, since July/Aug are typically slow months in on-the-ground work).

Ironically, de Jong is political cover here — the current leadership group can simply say “Frank asked for this, not us” — as if one prospective leadership candidate wanting this change is sufficient moral grounds to do so — what if someone else indicated they wanted to contest the leadership at some point in the future and said they *don’t* want this change? It’s hard to see the situation as anything other than what it is: the current leadership group and one prospective future leadership contestant have come up with a plan to best suit their interests, and are using the uncertainty over timing of the next election to do a quick-and-dirty change that fundamentally alters the nature of the GPC leader’s role. Fear over the timing of the next election will allow otherwise rational people to abandon their senses and allow the concentration of power with the leader (and this is not temporary, the party will have to live with this going forward) — see Klein, Naomi (i.e. The Shock Doctrine).

The reality is that proponents have known about this change for months, and have had the opportunity to build support for it with their supporters, but the membership at large knows nothing about it (except die-hards who visit blogs and discussion forums who’ve heard rumors, illustrating how poorly Council has handled this). And so when it comes time to vote on it (in a mail-in ballot, which appears to be Council’s favoured choice), there will be no debate and no organized opposition to it.

Feel free to paint as rosy a picture as you want or give the impression that nothing is decided, there is no language, etc. But you would be naive to believe that. If the current leadership groups wants this change, it will get done. But they might regret it if people feel that it was done on the sly — with a BGM in Aug, there’s no telling what members might do if they feel that the wool has been pulled over their eyes.

At least one of the GPC at-large councilors is thinking straight — here’s what Dan Murray sent to his fellow Councilors a few days ago:

It seems to me to be that the logical thing to do is walk away from the idea of a Special General Meeting. There is no emergency, and this idea was ill conceived to begin with. If we push forward with this it could take months to put it all together and it’s likely that by that time a spring election will either be occurring, or the threat will have passed.

Why not take the high road and have the BGM combined with the leadership contest in August? It’s certainly what was intended as recently as October, and it’s certainly what is intended by the spirit of the constitution.

Also, the motion that spurred this discussion was not only about delaying a leadership contest, but about eliminating it unless the leader fails some sort of undefined leadership review.

Changing the way we elect our leaders is far too important to be decided by a quickie mail-in vote or a quickie GM of any sort, let’s let the members have some time to discuss it, and see what comes out of the August BGM. To do otherwise is not grassroots, it is elitist.

Greg, I don’t really disagree with anything that you’ve written in your comments about this issue. I just think that your initial characterization which suggests that the February 2010 Special General Meeting is a “done deal” isn’t accurate at this time. I understand that Federal Council did not deal with this item on Sunday’s Agenda, due to timing, and that it may be discussed at next Sunday’s Federal Council meeting. We know that there are several Federal Councillors who appear to be opposed to the Special General Meeting concept, including Dan Murray, whose comments you have posted. Let’s maybe just wait and see what the outcome will be. I’m optimistic that the Green Party will come through here and follow its Constitution. That may be naivety on my part — right now, though, I’ll continue to hope.

I concede your point, Steve. But knowing the people involved, it they want it done, it will be done; seeing how it’s been handled so far suggests to me that it’s a fait accompli.

Ok. So…let’s see what happens. I buy you a beer if they vote for a Special General Meeting, you buy me one if there’s a Leadership Contest?

Sounds good, Steve.

Is Canadian politics “apathetic or just plain pathetic”? This depends upon who and what constitutes “Canadian politics.” If we only speak of the biggest players in politics — the major parties, their leaders, and much of the media — then it’s easy to hold a cynical view. But if “Canadian politics” is broader than this — if it includes Canadian people who are political but not necessarily as powerful or visible as those at the top — then we can see something boiling beneath the surface that might cause us to reassess the state of Canadian politics.

Apathy took a blow when masses of people spontaneously organized to protest against Harper’s abuse of prorogation. Far from being pathetic, I’d say these grassroots efforts added an inspiring dimension to Canadian politics.

As for the thought that “democracy has become inconvenient for all of Canada’s federal parties,” I can agree that all parties are struggling with their relationship to democratic principles. They’re all playing catch-up with citizens who want politics to be done differently and are starting to do it differently themselves. But the inconvenience of democracy doesn’t apply equally to all parties; some are adjusting better than others.

Democracy seems most inconvenient for the Conservatives, particularly for their autocratic leader, Stephen Harper. Even Conservative pundits like Tom Flanagan thought prorogation was a dumb move, albeit for strategic reasons more than any love for democracy. Fortunately, a few Conservative supporters did think Harper’s move to suspend Parliament was anti-democratic as they voiced their displeasure at rallies and by rethinking their voting intentions as evidenced in recent polls.

Democracy is still an inconvenience for the Old Guard of the Liberal party, as evidenced in the coronation of Michael Ignatieff. Chretien also used prorogation to avoid having to deal with the Sponsorship Scandal, too. But a younger generation of Liberals support some sort of renewal when they have the chance to vote for it. It’s too bad Stephane Dion was the “best” those Liberals could find.

The Greens used to be a lot more democratic than they are now. The trend of their party establishment to centralize power is indeed troubling. Jim Harris did a lot to change the party’s structure in this regard, and I fear what Frank de Jong would do if he ever became leader. These latest moves to change the constitution and avoid a leadership vote add continuity to this anti-democratic trend. Fortunately, the general membership of the Green Party seems much more committed to grassroots democracy than does the party establishment.

The NDP has similar internal challenges where many of its members are struggling to decentralize and democratize the party, but I don’t think democracy became inconvenient for New Democrats in the fall. The “flip flop” was a Liberal talking point echoed by the same uncritical media that initially thought Ignatieff was being strong for wanting an election and that the NDP was somehow being weak for not following along. But what was the “flip flop”? According to Liberals and the media it was that the NDP would break their continuity of voting 79 times in a row against the Conservatives. But a vote in favour of expanding EI benefits was a Conservative concession to the NDP, not the other way around. If the criterion for the NDP was voting against measures that hurt their constituents and voting for measures that helped them, then voting for EI improvements was no flip flop. In the end, the pundits were wrong on both counts; the NDP remained true to their policies and principles and stayed stable in the polls for avoiding an election that Canadians didn’t want. On the other hand, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals took the biggest hit in the polls for wanting an election without any convincing reason.

As for the point about the NDP fearing an election because they were down in the polls…. while pundits cited Ipsos Reid (which consistently reports lower-than-average support for the NDP and higher-than-average support for the Conservatives), all other polls reported the NDP remaining stable in the mid-teens where they generally are between elections. It’s during elections, with greater media coverage, that the NDP tends to rise in the polls. *If* polling had any factor in the NDP’s decision, it would be that the Conservatives were polling in majority territory after benefiting from Ignatieff’s miscalculation. The NDP can be more influential holding the balance of power in a minority government than it can be with more or less seats in a Conservative majority, so polls don’t matter as much as context to the NDP.

Some have even gone further to suggest the NDP couldn’t afford another election, but the party was in full election-readiness mode, had secured loans to spend a fully-funded campaign, and was already in the process of nominating its candidates before Ignatieff threatened to pull the plug.

Like I said in September when most pundits still thought Ignatieff was going to come out on top of this episode:

“A fall election will probably be delayed, if not prevented, if the NDP can extract EI reforms out of the Conservatives. Apply self-interest to this manoeuver, if you will, but whatever one makes of it, it would be good politics for both of those parties (the NDP gets something for its constituents and the Conservatives get to continue governing). More importantly, it would be good policy to ease access to the EI system, especially for Canadian workers who’ve been paying into it for years and have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own.”

Self-interested? Perhaps, although that’s not always a bad thing if the consequence (EI reform) helps a lot of people (nearly 200,000 Canadians).

An anti-democratic flip-flop? That talking point doesn’t really hold up since the NDP was ready for an election if it came to that. Their vote for EI reform also remained consistent with their policies and principles.

Democracy may be “inconvenient for all of Canada’s federal parties” to various degrees, but that inconvenience is not shared equally. To suggest all the parties are the same in this regard is disingenuous. And to apply Harper’s pathetic contempt for democracy so broadly to Canadian politics as a whole is a suggestion that engenders the very cynicism that we should be avoiding. There are important differences between Canadian political parties, especially in their respect (or lack of it) for democratic principles. And if “Canadian politics” is to be thought of so broadly as to include those people who organized and rallied against Harper’s contempt for democracy, then a good part of Canadian politics is far more inspired than it is apathetic or pathetic. The challenge lies in maintaining and building upon this engagement now that people are aroused and willing to stand up for democracy.