2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada

Please see the discussion under B002, which has a somewhat similar proposal. This change would create a complex and cumbersome administrative process, another layer of elections. At B002, @laurence makes a counter proposal that the Leader submit a list, FC vets it and membership accepts / rejects it wholesale. This retains the spirit of participatory democracy but removes the burden and improves the odds of a well-functioning cabinet. (One can imagine a large constellation of possible cabinets elected by members; the odds that we members will pick one that works effectively seems low.) The Leader is much better placed to propose a cabinet and seek our endorsement.

I also note that this will be more practical once we Greens have a sizable caucus, and eventually form government. Having members choose the cabinet implies a campaign among newly elected MPs to "win" cabinet positions when they should be learning the ropes on the Hill and developing as a team.

I like this idea "the co-leaders are appointed at the annual general meeting by delegates of the representative branches across the country." which would encourage more involvement by EDAs and more active participation of members at the local ridings to raise funds to sponsor a rep of an EDA when actual conventions (not virtual) are possible. IMO we are a long way from worrying about cabinet positions. Amend the policy when that time comes. This presumes that Elections Canada permits co-leaders. Maybe members elect one leader and runner-up automatically becomes co-leader?

I would be interested in knowing more about the examples given for Green parties with "stronger democratic processes," notably Germany and New Zealand. Although I agree that Green Parties in those countries may have stronger processes for empowering the grassroots than ours (honestly that isn't very hard), it would be interesting to know why you cited those examples specifically with respect to shadow cabinet and what Greens in those countries do different. German parties, as far as I'm aware, would not have the figure of Shadow Cabinet (as that is a figure of the Westminster system). They, however, form boards of expert advisors (are those similar to our current shadow cabinet? Not sure - If you have the information I would be very interested in knowing more). In New Zealand, what we call shadow critics they call them spokespersons, It's the same thing, as far as I'm aware. Those spokespersons would typically be elected representatives provided there are enough of them. Here in Canada we do not have enough Green MPs to cover the portfolios, so we have traditionally had shadow critics who aren't MPs. Once a party has enough MPs , they will likely become the shadow cabinet. A good example is the GPPEI - before, it had shadow critics who weren't elected members of the legislature but now, with 8 MLAs, the shadow critics are the MLAs. This is not because the PEI Greens have stronger democratic process, it is simply because they have enough elected people in the legislature. The leader still picks the SC, he just has enough elected people to fill the jobs. I would like to know how are those NZ spokespersons selected, whether it is different there. Many thanks in advance for answering this question, which is too long to address within the tight format of Motion Mondays, which is why I suggested to continue the discussion here

The International Precedents for Empowerment of the Membership

First, I want to say that I contacted Green parties in about a half a dozen countries and it was Germany and New Zealand that got back to me in time for me to submit my policy proposal before deadline.

I also want to say that neither country has leadership or cabinet structures exactly like ours in Canada. When comparing their structures to our own, it’s necessary to keep the role in mind, not the title of the role.

It’s also necessary to keep in mind that what my policy is about is devolving the power of the GPC leader to appoint deputy leaders and shadow cabinet members in order to empower the membership to elect candidates into these positions. So, what we’re examining with Germany and New Zealand is what power the leader has, if any, in appointing people to the roles.

Deputy Leadership Roles

In Germany, there are two executive co-chairs and two deputy chairs that are comparable to our leader and deputy leaders. Both the co-chairs and the deputy chairs are elected by the 800+ delegates of the party congress. As such, the leadership has no role in filling deputy positions.

In New Zealand, the Green Party has two co-leaders, elected, but no deputy leaders.

Policy Spokesperson Roles

As for policy spokespersons, neither Germany nor New Zealand has a shadow cabinet.

In Germany, three-quarters of the Green MPs have a role as spokesperson for a specific field of policy, and these positions are filled through negotiation among the MPs themselves and the leadership of the parliamentary caucus. The caucus leader would be like our own Elizabeth May, and not like our leader, Annamie Paul. The executive leadership stays out of this matter.

In New Zealand, the parliamentary caucus functions similarly in terms of policy spokespersons. Candidates for MP positions are selected and ranked by the party membership (presumably including those in leadership positions or those who will become leaders), and voted upon in the country's general election. As in Germany, the leadership itself has no special role in selecting or appointing the policy spokespersons.

The Historical Precedents for Empowerment of the Membership

When the GPC's first shadow cabinet was formed in 1996, it was elected by the membership, not appointed by the leader. Ten years later, in 2006, things changed. Although it’s not clear why, meeting minutes show that going forward, the shadow cabinet would be selected by the leader of the party, in conjunction with other members of the shadow cabinet or with Federal Council. It’s also not clear from meeting minutes why, in 2008, it was determined that the leader alone would appoint members of shadow cabinet, further consolidating power in the leader.

As for deputy leaders, in 2004, leader Jim Harris spoke for the need to create those positions and fill them through internal elections. In 2006, Jim transitioned out of leadership, and his idea of electing deputy leaders was for some reason dropped. The motion in 2008 that empowered the leader alone to appoint members of shadow cabinet also empowered the leader alone to appoint two deputy leaders.

This historical decision-making is what I'm asking to revisit. I’m looking for a reversal of it, because participatory democracy matters to our party both as an idea and as an enactment of the idea; that is, as a principle and as a process. Participatory democracy is fundamental to how we think about politics and how we do politics here in the Green Party.

The Principle at Work in My Policy

I want to point out that the submission rules for policy proposals that are still in effect today insist that proposals must be written as a high-level policy principle, without delving into any strategy or tactics to achieve the desired outcome. As such, I don’t need to worry about exactly how my policy could or should be implemented or how the political environment could or should be managed to incorporate it. My policy proposal needs to be assessed according to the principle of participatory democracy, not according to what will guarantee the qualifications of candidates or how election campaigns would be run or how an elected team would function. These are practical concerns, not principles. If we want the principle of participatory democracy to be met, the party can work out the implementation and the political management later.

In discussing participatory democracy, I would mention that I was a member of a workers' co-op for a number of years. In that setting, participatory democracy resulted in a sense of ownership and commitment far greater than any I've felt in any other kind of workplace. I sometimes hear rumblings about a lack of involvement on the part of many members in the life of the Green Party. In my view, if we want party members to show up, we have to increase opportunities for their meaningful participation, including in meaningful decision-making.

Some people have asked what my proposal is trying to fix. It’s actually not about fixing something that’s broken or solving some problem. It’s purely about the principle of participatory democracy. What is the value of democracy is a philosophical question, and whole books are written on this. What I can do is think back to my experience in a workers’ coop, where we made all the decisions ourselves, where every one of us was the boss, and say that the experience of participatory democracy is about ownership and belonging, and collective self-determination and collective self-realization.