Greens modernize leadership term, endorse leader
Amidst some media specuation, the results of a party vote on resolutions has been announced*, and I’m excited to tell you today that the Green Party’s membership has green-lighted a resolution (3/4 in favour) that modernizes our constitution and changes the structure of the leadership term. Instead of allowing a four-year leadership term, come hell, high water, election, or other crisis, party members have decided that instead, the leader will be submitted to a review vote following a federal election. Also noteworthy is that Elizabeth May’s leadership received a solid endorsement, with 85% of members voting for resolution G10-D02, affirming that the party endorses May.
This is great news! This constitutional amendment addresses a number of serious political issues that have been of concern to Federal Council and party members for some time. When Council began to look into this issue, we quickly learned that Elections Canada rules around the financing of leadership campaigns would make it very difficult for a sitting leader to campaign for re-election while also running for Parliament. And obviously, there is the political stupidity of adhering to a rigid schedule for a leadership race in this age of minority governments, snap elections, Prime Ministers disregarding their own fixed-date election legislation, and so on. You can read a little more here about the problems we were faced with, and why we proposed this resolution as a solution.
To hold a leadership race for no good reason other than because four years have passed is something we realized that the Green Party, as we continue to gain support and professionalize, has outgrown. So I’m beyond excited today that the membership, in its infinite wisdom, has agreed with the changes Council suggested.
What does this mean? It’s simple. Within six months of a federal election, members will vote in a leadership review, and a contest will be held if less than 60% of members endorse the leader.
I should note that this change won’t be formally made to the constitution until after our August 20-22 convention, when the Party will ask members to formally ratify the changes. But given the strong support this motion received on the Bonser ballot, I don’t think that will be a problem.
There are still several motions that were yellow-lighted on the ballot, meaning that they will be debated, discussed and amended at the convention in workshops, and finally voted on by delegates at the BGM. I plan to do a post sometime this week about which motions we should be watching out for, and how I will be voting.
Before I leave, have you bought your ticket to the convention yet? Check out all the exciting events on the agenda! We are offering one-day tickets at a deep discount — only $100 for a single day, or $50 for students/seniors/unwaged. Get your ticket now, and join in on the voting, discussions and fun!
*This link will only work if you’re a member and login to the website.
Scridb filter
I wonder if anyone has had a look at how the Grren Party of UK does things. If I am not mistaken, they “modernized” their Constitution in 2007 as follows: “The party’s Leader and Deputy Leader are elected every two years by a postal ballot of all party members.” Kind of like we used to do in 2004 and before. They had a little success recently too as I recall. I wonder what example we have chosen to follow, that of the dominating grey parties in Canada (LPC, CPC, NDP) or that of the exciting and successful Green Party of the UK?
I don’t call what we have done – “modernization”. I don’t have a single word or feeling for what we have just done to our party. We have gone 180 degress away from regular, fair and vigorously contested Leadership Contests, sustaining the life and ensuring a constant influx of new ideas and energy into the party, to a situation where the sitting Leader has the enshrined advantage of incumbency and effectively has the job for as long as they want. The party may now be left holding a Leadership Contest at some very low point in the future when the sitting Leader simply grows weary of leading the party or is lured away by some better opportunity. This isn’t what I signed up for – not at all!
Even the President of the United States of America, arguably the most powerful person in the world, has to face fair, vigorous and regular Contests, and has a 2 term limit as well.
The vote and decision is the will of the members, and I respect the will of the members. What I don’t accept is the institutional bias surrounding this issue in the form of heavy influence from various units of the party that have been supporting this change, without a fair chance for those opposed to have their voices heard with the similar intensity. What we have chosen to do may be best for some of those that supported this change, but may not be best for our party based on our principles.
Time will tell I suppose.
Rob Brooks
The reality is 9% of Green party members voted in support of May.
Chris, another aspect of reality is that about 1% of GPC members opposed/refused to endorse Elizabeth May’s leadership. 85% of those who voted endorsed her leadership.
A lot of people join political parties to support them, who don’t want to participate much or at all. That’s been the case with the GPC since I joined in 1984. I’m not sure there’s much we can do about it unless we want to restrict membership to some kind of elite of activists, which would bring its own problems.
Is the low proportion of participants a reflection of member alienation – or just that most people figure they have better things to do (especially in the summer) than read e-mails? Like, maybe, talk to their spouse and children? Your guess is as good as mine.