Keep the Commissions, they add value to the party!
Gordon Gibson is sure wrong about the value and importance of having Aboriginal people (through the Aboriginal Peoples' Commission) and youth (through the Young Liberals of Canada) invovled in the Liberal Party. He talks about how these groups are not "mainstream Canada" and have little important role to play in the party. I absolutely disagree. The Aboriginal and Youth commissions have played a vaulable role in attracting new people to the party at time when our party needs to expand its voters base.
Liberal reform: More than new lipstick on the old pig
GORDON GIBSON
Globe and Mail
The Liberal Party of Canada is a mild-mannered beast when in government,reproducing incestuously and rewarding its apparatchiks while keeping themilitants at bay. Historically Toronto-centric (with a Quebec veto, ofcourse), the party's power structure gradually became a coalition of specialinterests. Here were multicult ethnics, gender politicians, an aboriginalcommission, stuffed-shirt youth and regional fiefs, all baronies that havelittle to do with mainstream Canada. This can catch up if people takenotice, and the country today is mostly represented outside of Toronto andanglo Montreal by the Tories or the Bloc Québécois.So power has been lost by the Natural Governing Party. In response, assurely as night follows day, a reform commission has been appointed. I knowsomething about that. Though my partisan days are long behind, I once hadthe honour of serving as co-chair of the National Reform Commission of theLiberal Party of Canada in 1985. The general thought behind such aself-examination is that, if the voters have made a temporary mistake, it isnecessary to put new lipstick on the old pig before the next election.The new task-force report is done. It has one very good idea and a number ofrather bad ones -- not a terrible ratio in politics. The simple trick is tokill the bad ones.The good idea is that of a national council of presidents that would meetregularly to review party success and direction. First proposed in 1985, andstrangled at birth by divisions at the ensuing convention, such a councilwould be able to act as a powerful check on the leader; in Canada, thiswould be a good thing for any party in 2006. Prime ministers have become sopowerful as to be virtually four-year elected dictators. Competent peoplesuch as Stephen Harper can demonstrate this even in a minority period.Caucuses and Parliaments do not make for accountability, whatever thetheory. They do what they are told, because the PM has so many levers overthem.A national council of presidents -- 300 or so ordinary people with no axesto grind or favours to seek, able to call the leader to account -- would addan important balance wheel to our partisan constitutional structure thatalready has a precursor in the traditions of the NDP. It is easy to recalltimes when both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were so offside with theLiberal Party (and the country) that such a council would have been a realproblem for them. Interestingly, the council could be given teeth. Thecurrent task force has proposed a tool to sanction the leader in a couple ofspecified areas beyond mere embarrassment, by way of calling a leadershipreview should he or she fail to do certain things. Such a general powercould be afforded the council.The report contains some useful technical additions (a national membership,for example), the much-needed cancellation of layers of encrusted committees-- and some serious errors. As one example of the latter, it is proposedthat each riding association delegation to conventions should have tworeserved aboriginal slots, a racial distinction that's wrong in a worldwhere we celebrate too much the things that divide us.The report would continue and enhance the ridiculous power of youth in theLiberal Party. There are two problems. The first is, the youth component hastraditionally been subject to capture and/or purchase by ambitious seniorleaders. The second is, while youth may be our future as a country, they arecertainly not our wisdom.The task force offers the alternative of choosing future leaders byuniversal ballot, i.e. "one Liberal, one vote." This would be a mistake.Nothing sounds more democratic, but, in practice, it gives the leadersupreme power by being able to say to the caucus, "I was elected by all ofthe party, I speak for them, and so will not be accountable to you." Butaccountability to parliamentarians is at the very centre of ourconstitutional theory, and properly so since changing times require suchongoing discipline. The old Reform Party began this error. The Liberalsshould not copy it. Leaders are already too powerful. The delegated systemof choosing leaders should be retained, and the power of caucus and themembership vis-à-vis the leader should be enhanced by such devices as thecouncil of presidents.Political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. Yet, they governour lives by choosing our leaders. Parties are largely left to governthemselves, for better or worse. Often, it is worse. Few things seem lessinteresting than the Liberal Party's internal affairs, but a revitalizationis needed to give the voters a choice and the decisions on these questionswill be of future importance.
Liberal reform: More than new lipstick on the old pig
GORDON GIBSON
Globe and Mail
The Liberal Party of Canada is a mild-mannered beast when in government,reproducing incestuously and rewarding its apparatchiks while keeping themilitants at bay. Historically Toronto-centric (with a Quebec veto, ofcourse), the party's power structure gradually became a coalition of specialinterests. Here were multicult ethnics, gender politicians, an aboriginalcommission, stuffed-shirt youth and regional fiefs, all baronies that havelittle to do with mainstream Canada. This can catch up if people takenotice, and the country today is mostly represented outside of Toronto andanglo Montreal by the Tories or the Bloc Québécois.So power has been lost by the Natural Governing Party. In response, assurely as night follows day, a reform commission has been appointed. I knowsomething about that. Though my partisan days are long behind, I once hadthe honour of serving as co-chair of the National Reform Commission of theLiberal Party of Canada in 1985. The general thought behind such aself-examination is that, if the voters have made a temporary mistake, it isnecessary to put new lipstick on the old pig before the next election.The new task-force report is done. It has one very good idea and a number ofrather bad ones -- not a terrible ratio in politics. The simple trick is tokill the bad ones.The good idea is that of a national council of presidents that would meetregularly to review party success and direction. First proposed in 1985, andstrangled at birth by divisions at the ensuing convention, such a councilwould be able to act as a powerful check on the leader; in Canada, thiswould be a good thing for any party in 2006. Prime ministers have become sopowerful as to be virtually four-year elected dictators. Competent peoplesuch as Stephen Harper can demonstrate this even in a minority period.Caucuses and Parliaments do not make for accountability, whatever thetheory. They do what they are told, because the PM has so many levers overthem.A national council of presidents -- 300 or so ordinary people with no axesto grind or favours to seek, able to call the leader to account -- would addan important balance wheel to our partisan constitutional structure thatalready has a precursor in the traditions of the NDP. It is easy to recalltimes when both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were so offside with theLiberal Party (and the country) that such a council would have been a realproblem for them. Interestingly, the council could be given teeth. Thecurrent task force has proposed a tool to sanction the leader in a couple ofspecified areas beyond mere embarrassment, by way of calling a leadershipreview should he or she fail to do certain things. Such a general powercould be afforded the council.The report contains some useful technical additions (a national membership,for example), the much-needed cancellation of layers of encrusted committees-- and some serious errors. As one example of the latter, it is proposedthat each riding association delegation to conventions should have tworeserved aboriginal slots, a racial distinction that's wrong in a worldwhere we celebrate too much the things that divide us.The report would continue and enhance the ridiculous power of youth in theLiberal Party. There are two problems. The first is, the youth component hastraditionally been subject to capture and/or purchase by ambitious seniorleaders. The second is, while youth may be our future as a country, they arecertainly not our wisdom.The task force offers the alternative of choosing future leaders byuniversal ballot, i.e. "one Liberal, one vote." This would be a mistake.Nothing sounds more democratic, but, in practice, it gives the leadersupreme power by being able to say to the caucus, "I was elected by all ofthe party, I speak for them, and so will not be accountable to you." Butaccountability to parliamentarians is at the very centre of ourconstitutional theory, and properly so since changing times require suchongoing discipline. The old Reform Party began this error. The Liberalsshould not copy it. Leaders are already too powerful. The delegated systemof choosing leaders should be retained, and the power of caucus and themembership vis-à-vis the leader should be enhanced by such devices as thecouncil of presidents.Political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. Yet, they governour lives by choosing our leaders. Parties are largely left to governthemselves, for better or worse. Often, it is worse. Few things seem lessinteresting than the Liberal Party's internal affairs, but a revitalizationis needed to give the voters a choice and the decisions on these questionswill be of future importance.
posted by Joshua Fraser | 2:45 PM
<< Home