An honest man's word is as good as his bond.

Here's a piece I penned that appears in tomorrow's Ottawa Citizen.

The Liberal party sure likes things complicated

There’s an earworm and an allegory snaking their way around my head as I ponder the most recent drama in the Liberal Party of Canada. The earworm comes courtesy of Avril Lavigne: Why’d you have to go and make things so complicated? And the allegory? Why, it comes from The Scorpion and the Frog: “It’s my nature ...”

Having been involved with the Liberal party in the lowest and the highest organizational capacities over a really long period of time, I can attest to the endless machinations of reforming and democratizing, with an outcome that almost always disappoints or gets reversed when it no longer suits. It always seems to be one step forward two steps back. With luck, this time will finally be different.

In the early ’80s a group of Young Liberals pushed for a lengthy reform process that saw among other things a diminution of the weight of party elites in party decision making. For example, senators and members of the appointed revenue committee were no longer to be delegates to conventions. At the first convention where the delegation would have been thusly composed, the 1990 leadership, the party took the highly democratically questionable step of reinstating those delegates through a retroactive constitutional amendment. The day before the voting began, these people were not delegates. The day of the vote, they were.

Who this was fair to, or unfair to, didn’t really seem to matter. Average party members had made a decision that didn’t work for the elites and vested interests, and that just wouldn’t do.

After two extremely long and divisive leadership races in 1989-’90 and 2006, and another aborted one in 2008-’09, party members decided that future leadership contests would be reasonably short, and so when Michael Ignatieff decided two days after the election last year to step down, I and others thought: Finally! We know exactly what’s up, and everyone will be on an equal footing. We will have a leadership vote no later than October and then get down to the brass tacks of rebuilding, unfettered by leadership sniping and with a good four years to heal and strengthen.

But some didn’t think that was the right way to go, and constitutions hadn’t stood in the way before. It’s just that this time, according those in charge (the infamous “National Board”) the party wanted and deserved an “unprecedented” national consultation because the last democratic decision made by the party, well, just didn’t suit the current circumstances.

An “extraordinary” convention was called and held to change the timing of the leadership contest. But this is only part of the story.

It’s true that there were people calling for consultations on the leadership process and timing. But some were also calling for those consultations to include the appointment of an interim leader. It only made sense, if you are going to democratize major decisions beyond the constitution due to circumstance, this one should be democratized too.

Clearly, after the circumstances surrounding the appointment of the previous interim leader, Michael Ignatieff, which many felt had contributed to the tainting (or solidifying depending on your point of view) of the Liberal “brand,” this was the one area where a greater say from the party’s proletariat was called for. But here, the board chose not to consult, and to keep the process and decision to themselves, as was their entitlement.

And they did so with the inclusion of the famous “conditions,” two of which many believed were directed at excluding, specifically, the candidacy of one individual, Bob Rae: those of non-complicity with the NDP and agreement not to seek the permanent leadership.

At the time, when these two decisions were coinciding, Rae implored the party, saying that if he was to accept the interim leadership under the proposed conditions, he would need time to rebuild the party and basically make it leader-worthy. According to one report at the time, “Rae laid down a condition of his own. He said he’s only interested in being interim leader if the vote for permanent leader is put off for 18 to 24 months.”

And so Bob Rae became interim leader and the leadership was put off for gee — 22 months from the decision and 18 from when the leadership would have been. But circumstances changed. Jack Layton’s passing resulted in a leadership race of its own and increased focus on the NDP. People said the leadership was too far away. Bob Rae did such a superb job that the party brass were under intense pressure to change the process again. Media focus increased and the party became increasingly fragile and divided. And, then finally, someone decided for once to do the right thing and stick with the program.

Here another earworm invades. This time it’s Alanis. Ironic, isn’t it?

Sheila Gervais is former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada. She blogs at quixoterules.blogspot.com.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

 

" He has an oar in every man's boat, and a finger in every pie. "

Allrighty then.  We're off to the races! 

I've been having a fun time over the last week or so chatting mostly with new Liberal friends I've met through Tilting at Windmills, Twitter, Facebook and most importantly the recent election campaign - as well as of course all of the old dogs I know and enjoy kibitzing with whether we agree or disagree (we all seem to agree on a value set, so...).

Curious thing about the newbies is that they are really adamant about helping to "rebuild" as has become the catch phrase, but they are extremely dismayed at the organizational state of the party.  

Dustin is one such new member who I correspond with on Twitter about all matters Liberal. He has told me that since he joined the Party in April (in a GTA riding just recently lost to the CPC - he comes from out west) no one has been in touch with him other than at his own instigation and that was only once. He has not been invited to any meetings, events or discussions since before the election, during or since. He is befuddled by a lot of the "process" he sees out there and fussing about this Extraordinary Convention. He is anxious to participate in the rebuilding and has just this week again contacted the party to offer his help in the riding in away he can.  We're very lucky that there are people out there like this. 

It's such a shame that these people need to get all of their information and discussion through remote sources like Facebook, Twitter and the blogosphere and not through face-to-face meetings and discussions (although LPC just very recently added a decent and transparent discussion board on this weekend's resolutions to it website - people really should check it out if they're not aware of it).


On the other hand, thank goodness we at least have that.  A few weeks ago, among others, Liberal blogger Jeff Jedras, who blogs as A BCer in Toronto, wrote that he wasn't much enamoured with the impact of the Party's proposal on the timing of the Leadership Vote and he very much hoped that the Party would find appropriate mechanisms to allow a greater range of options or counter-proposals if you wish. Well on Tuesday (very late in the game, mais en tous cas!) Jeff (and many others) got his wish when the Party issued the rules for the weekend's tele-convention.  The process for the Extraordinary Convention allows for sub-amendments to be proposed with the support of 25 delegates submitted by Noon today. Jeff developed such a proposal (which would, if successful, shorten the period between now and a Leadership vote from the 18-22 months proposed by the Party) and began the process of finding supporting delegates via, what else? his blog, his Facebook page and Twitter.  Funnily enough, when you don't have a delegates list getting 25 supporting emails when you basically have 48 hours isn't as easy as one might think. 

Even though the Party discouraged actual DSMs, where some discussion c/should have taken place, the riding that I participate in, Ottawa West-Nepean, decided that it was important to bring together delegates and interested members of the general membership to discuss the Party's proposed resolutions and ensure everyone understood the impact of their adoption or defeat.  We did so Wednesday night - while the Stanley Cup final was on - with a near-full house. The consensus on the timing of the Leadership vote was a preference for an 18 to 24 month interim period - actually longer than that anticipated by the Party's resolution.  While there wasn't really a consensus on the timing of the Biennial a plurality also favoured putting the Biennial Convention off even further (I personally do not support that). We had already heard rumours that there may be proposals other than Jeff's coming forward, but wondered about scrambling to put some of our own together to ensure more options on the table.


In the end several of us were contacted throughout the day yesterday about other proposals and as of this time of writing it is confirmed that three sets of sub-amendments (including Jeff's) have indeed been accepted by the Party and will be posted shortly.  I have supported two of the proposals related to the leadership vote (one that would see the Leadership Vote held in 2013 and one that would see it be able to be held late in 2012 and later in 2013 than the Party proposal), even though they would compete with each other again, because I believe it is important to have more discussion - more healthy discussion, and more transparency.  I think too that whatever the final outcome, it will have more legitimacy because of the options and the debate.  It's too bad that the debate will come so late in the game, however; many delegates will not really be aware of the full options before them and while there are provisions for discussion on the teleconference itself - there won't be opportunity for a lot of it - certainly not that afforded by the hallway discussions that normally take place at face-to-face meetings and Conventions.


Former long-term MP Marlene Catterall put it very well in a communication to delegates earlier today urging support for these two sets of amendments getting to the table: 

I want to thank you all again for a thoughtful and passionate discussion at our meeting on Wednesday evening. Whatever our various opinions on the issues that will be discussed and voted on tomorrow, we obviously share an unfailing commitment to the Liberal Party and the values that have been its foundation and inspiration.

We also share a desire for free and open debate and do not want to feel we are being manipulated and not given choices on the issues before us.

I let you all know at the meeting that I support a later Biennial convention to allow the renewal process to be well underway and to allow for the fullest possible involvement of the members across the country in determining the direction of the Party and the choice of the people who would be responsible for carrying out what we the members determined.

I also support a later leadership selection vote to be held in 2013.

I have emailed the party to indicate my support for three amendments that have been submitted, two from PEI supported by the Yukon and interestingly one from BC: perhaps a cross-Canada consensus developing here?

The three resolutions are attached. The rationale is similar and I found the introduction to the one from Greg  in PEI especially worth reading.

If you feel either of these is consistent with your thinking, please consider sending an email of support to the party at convention@liberal.ca. These resolutions can only come forward for discussion tomorrow if at least 25 delegates indicate their support for them. This in no way binds you to vote for them if the discussion persuades you otherwise  but it does open up the discussion and give us options.

Tomorrow’s conference call convention should be interesting and maybe an exciting first step in the grass roots flourishing.

Marlene

All of this is so much closer to democracy in action. With any luck some of the culture change many of us are seeking is beginning to peak through the fog.  

Oh - and for the record (I hope to be able to put up my own rationales in some sort of timely way, but in case I can't) - I favour both of the Party's proposed amendments, but would prefer resolution number 1 (Leadership Vote) be improved by the BC: Rebuild First sub-amendment and failing that the PEI/Yukon: Sub-amendment Three.

Happy deliberations, and ...

“It is a true saying that a man must eat a peck of salt with his friend before he knows him.”

Yes, let’s chat a bit, chew the fat, hash a few things out.

I must admit that when I saw the Liberal talking points on the “coalition fear-mongering”, I had exactly the same reaction as this guy’s musings.

Last week I sent the letter that follows to the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the LPC’s Policy and Platform Committee, copied to responsible board members and officials at LPC and LPCO, as well as some in OLO.

“Last Friday, exactly one month before the date of the “Policy Matters” conference scheduled for Ontario, I received a “notice” for it contained in an email note from the Party’s Membership Secretary.  I do not know exactly on what basis I received the note (as an “insider”, as an email subscriber, as a donor, or as a member) but assume that it did not go exclusively to actual signed up members of the Party as the notice itself contains a plea to join, in order to participate, going on to say:

“Liberal members have a key role to play in shaping our party’s policies. Between the point where the broad ideas and priorities are identified, and where our policy platform is presented to Canadians, members must weigh in with their views, to ensure those policies reflect the values and vision of grassroots Liberals in all corners of Canada.” 

This is an excellent sentiment, but I can only view the process that accompanies it as not much more than lip service.

As a very long-standing member of the Party, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed on several fronts.

·         Some of you know that it is my personal view that the leadership of the Party should be having policy and value-validation discussions with members before going to the broad public as well as after, and on a regular ongoing basis.  I believe that this lack of ongoing discussion, debate and consultation is a key factor in the appearance of a lack of surefootedness on the part of our Party and its leadership. 

·         As far as I can tell the date for the conferences was “announced” by the Policy Chair on En Famille on March 24, and while some of the very few active participants on En Famille have discussed various aspects, there have not been any updates on process, subject areas or otherwise posted there or elsewhere since.  If these conferences were not in fact after-thoughts to somehow try and engage the membership one would have assumed that all of the general preparation for them would have been already in place immediately post- (pre- actually) Canada at 150 itself, so that active discussions and preparation could take place. Even with a great deal of understanding it is difficult to comprehend no further communications in over 7 weeks. 

·         As part of the premise or positioning of the conferences appear to be about membership engagement, and hopefully encouraging the development of more activity at the level of the EDA in anticipation of an election, again, it seems to me that one of the better ways to do this is to encourage a lot of activity and opportunity well in advance of the conferences themselves.  I do not know how EDA’s can be expected to call assemblies or other gatherings of members to discuss these issues in order to properly present their association’s – or further – their region’s points of view.  You will therefore most likely end up with a bunch of individual opinion presented at the conferences; I do not know how this advances a collaborative, coherent (and perhaps brokered) party platform.    

·         It is very difficult to glean from the agenda (which was difficult to access for several days) exactly what will in fact be discussed.  The agenda simply contains the broad subject areas. If, as the agenda indicates, the plenary will provide the “set of statements from Canada at 150 Conference”, “Questions for themed breakout sessions”, and the “Regional topic presentation”, I do not understand why those could not be “presented” or available in advance.  We only learn that in the case of Ontario, the regional topic is “Municipal Infrastructure” by peering further down the agenda to the breakout sessions. Personally, I do not know if I would be able to participate properly without the ability to research and review a bit, and gather my own thoughts, opinions and positions, let alone discuss them with others as per above.  I am sure many others would be in the same boat. And, just how are we to discuss the subject areas?  Will we be accepting or rejecting, or improving upon a set of proposals?  Will we be applying a “Liberal-value test”? What exactly is the form of the input the marvelous statement above actually requests or expects? 

·         How did the regional subject areas get assigned? Wouldn’t it have been better for the party members to actually have been asked for their input? I don’t know that municipal infrastructure would have been on my personal list but perhaps there might have been consensus in the membership on that, we just don’t know.  In the context of platform development and the future of the country (at 150 recall) I personally would liked to have seen us discuss the future of our democracy – a pretty hot substantive and political area of national discussion these days and there are tonnes of party members discussing it in all sorts of public and private arenas, but no one asked. I do not know how this Party, the Liberal Party of Canada could contemplate going to the electorate without some sort of discussion about the state of our democracy and what type of democratic institutions and systems we believe the country should have when it reaches it’s 150th birthday. 

You should expect that this email has been blind copied to someone somewhere. Thanks for listening.

Sheila Gervais”

I did not receive many formal responses, but that fact and the content of those that I did are not the point of my posting this letter here.  The talking points referred to above are.

Now that it’s out there, I expect there will be “debate” in the Party about this statement as WK points out:

We aren’t interested in coalitions.  

Just not formal debate.  And that’s a darn shame. Isn’t that exactly the type of thing that the Party should be discussing when it gets together to discuss stuff in June?  Isn’t that the type of rather big, principled stuff you consult on or at least seek some guidance on before making such a categorical and definitive statement?  Why do we allow ourselves to fear a good, healthy, principled debate?  I’m just asking.

"Never look for birds of this year in the nests of the last."

So the hot topic these days is the Harper "attack ads"; most observers and pundits commenting on the veracity of the ads themselves, i.e. is their content truthful and honest?, as opposed to the veracity of the strategy behind them, i.e. as one element in a political strategy are they a truthful and honest tactic?

What they are, most definitely are an attempt by Harper to re-employ a strategy that he perceives to have worked in the past. Unfortunately for the voting (or non-voting) public that "successful" strategy was one launched against democracy in Canada, not against a political opponent, be that an individual or an organization. It was a crass strategy targeting the voter as a consumer. His means to his end (obviously winning the last election) was not the presentation of a positive platform or vision of the country, not even wanting to govern for some reason, or with some purpose than simply being the smartest strategist in the free world; it was winning through control, containment and manipulation.

Straight from the (Karl) Rovian playbook, itself originally based on the successful William McKinley campaign of 1896, which applied business principles to politics for the first time, Harper embarked on a strategy of winning through voter suppression. Rove's own underlying strategy in the (Bush) Texas gubernatorial contest of 1994 of segmentation and balancing persuasion with motivation, had morphed by 2000 and the Presidential contest of Bush/Gore to segmentation and balancing motivation with anti-motivation. "Business principles" became honed to "marketing principles".

In the 2006-2008 period, Harper employed his Rovian techniques mercilessly: segment the "market"; treat voters as consumers of a product; define the other product as unpalatable to certain consumers; flood the market with specialized appeals to your own loyal consumers; and, don't worry about, and in fact encourage, consumers who don't like your product either, to simply go without. There is no other explanation for the conduct of Harper's cabinet and caucus in the last Parliament; they simply didn't care how many voters were turned off period, as long as their "core" remained motivated; having the rest anti-motivated was simply according to plan.

The "success" of the strategy is borne out by the disastrous turnout figures of the 2008 election. Out of the slightly more than 1,000,000 voters in 2006 who did not vote in 2008, more than 75% of those - close to 850,000 - were formerly Liberal voters. Canadian politics had reached the acme of anti-motivation. Voting motivation and democratic principles suppressed.

Michael Ignatieff wants to "do politics differently" (and I think he's made a decent start at it) and believes that voters want politics done differently too. I agree that many might, but that many more have already slipped into ambivalence, and in order to stop the slide, politics will have to be done very differently indeed. If we can present our party as about caring more about Canada and our flailing democracy, than about the Party itself, the contrast will be compelling. But it's a very tall order: complex and time-consuming (and admittedly rather academic), and (sigh) one that will pragmatically have to be thinned somewhat by the true realities of politics.

But as the old adage attests: "charity begins at home". In marketing circles there is a difference between marketing products and marketing organizations and ideas. A product doesn't really have a "relationship" with it's audience, but an organization does. Brand management is about customers; relationship management is about reputation. The electorate is not inured to the Liberal Party's own deportment in the past, otherwise Harperovian strategies and tactics wouldn't work as well as they have. They come by much of their cynicism honestly. But we can begin by letting voters know that we don't simple view them as consumers of a political "product". That we are not simply marketers, but developers, innovators and public-service-providers. Proceedings in Parliament and conduct in between and during election campaigns will be indicative.

Let's turn the Harperovian strategy on it's head. Not voter suppression; but voter expression.

"Fair and softly goes far. "

This is the best letter to the editor I've read in a long time.

"Michel Facon

One key to understanding the attack ads against Michael Ignatieff is the accusation that he is ''sure of himself.'' This shows that the Conservatives are lacking in self-confidence and identify themselves as uneducated, uncultured, inferior provincials.

The mere description of the anti-Ignatieff ads produced by the Tories has led me to an action that I have considered but never done. I am joining the Liberal Party of Canada."

Thanks, Stephen Harper, for helping to grow the Liberal movement. Keep it up.

"I find my familiarity with thee has bred contempt."

Why does the Liberal Party repeatedly continue to dis its atrophying membership, paying lip service to its relevance and importance through examination of "change" and "renewal" while at the same time solidifying control by the (interim) (unelected) Leader, the caucus and unelected officials? It's a contemptuous attitude - contemptuous of the membership surely, but contemptuous of democratic principles more certainly.

First (or more correctly, recently first) was the selection of a "permanent" leader without membership involvement whatsoever, not even a consultation. And, it should be noted this selection was made by caucus members, themselves with little (or none, in the case of Senators) recent connection themselves to the membership either - most having either been "protected" from their membership given their status as incumbents in the last election, or appointed (by whom? not by the membership surely).

Next came the un-appointment (disappointment?) of the National Director and appointment of the new one by the IUEL when the Constitution clearly states that this is the role of the National Executive as the representatives of all members.

Amazingly, these acts were followed by the acclamation of 93% of the delegates to the upcoming "Leadership" Convention and another dissing of the membership - denied, in 278 out of 308 ridings their right to express their views on the selection of Leader.

While this is going on the Party enters its examination phase, looking at cultural and Constitutional change related to Leadership selection; the Party's structure; its Commissions; and, note this for later: "The development of a clear process and tools for connecting grassroots policy development to all levels of the party." It does not specifically examine overall membership rights and responsibilities, nor, in this context, the nomination process.

And, while that is going on the (unelected) Party leadership announces a new/old regime to protect incumbents. Tories try to do the same and this time the MSM (in addition to Quixotique!) wades in. Some argue that Parties are private organizations and the electorate don't notice these things or care. But others know that, as did Sancho Panza, you are known by the company you keep ("Tell me thy company, and I will tell thee what thou art." ). The Tories, surprisingly given their hammer-hold, top down, command-and-control propensities, bent a bit under the weight of democratic principle (or populism) and agreed that their membership will get some sort of say. The Liberal Party? Silent. Meanwhile, the MSM (voice of the electorate?) continue to call the parties on this antiquated, undemocratic practice as suggest that they might better be reigned in by public regulation through the form of some kind of registration. Hear! Hear! Elections Canada take note: somebody trusts you.

And, now, to cap it all off, the very body that is examining "the development of a clear process and tools for connecting grassroots policy development to all levels of the party," informs us that we're just a tad too untrustworthy and indiscreet to participate in the development of the Party platform. We don't understand the realities of campaigning and governing doncha know. We can have our little say, at great personal expense, but we're not to expect much, it's just not our responsibility to decide nor let the electorate know what we stand for:

"People are free to debate and voice their views and that's the way it should be and you deal with that. Whether or not a certain debate will be incorporated into the platform, or have influence on the platform is not for me to decide, it's the leader's responsibility"

So, why bother having a convention at all I say? Why bother having a convention when there's only one candidate interested in being President of the darn thing anyway? Why bother having a convention when virtually all of the delegates are unelected and therefore not arriving at convention with any sort of delegated mandate from anybody anyway? Why bother having a convention where the main question has already been decided and any others, whether policy- or change-oriented will simply be ignored?

Why bother period.

"You cannot eat your cake and have your cake."

When is a Leader not a Leader? When they're an interim Leader! Or, (perhaps and) when they have not been elected in accordance with the LPC Constitution.

ILMI seems to get that it is important for his leadership to be "ratified" by the "rank and file" as well as the importance of adhering to "all the constitutional procedures for the party", but I'm not sure that he gets (or knows?) that the Party is about to do neither. Not sure that delegates to a convention (elected, selected or ex-officio) are really the rank and file; the people who elect them, however, would be. Not sure either that the decision-makers really get that they are likely doing the ISTBLLMI (Interim Soon to be Legitimate Leader) no favours in once again bending the process for practical, not principled reasons, and expediency.

The Party will be allowing EDA's to not hold Delegate Election Meetings for the upcoming Vancouver (Leadership) Convention, if the number of "delegate candidates" applying to be (elected as) delegates is less than the maximum number per EDA (22). This is apparently being authorized so that EDA's, Clubs and PTA's can avoid the expense and administrative hassles of holding meetings, when they otherwise wouldn't be necessary, as the delegates they claim, would simply be "acclaimed" in such an instance. Problem is that pretty much negates the universal (or OMOV) vote aspect of the leadership selection process currently envisaged by the constitution and nullifies the desire of ILMI to have his leadership ratified by the rank and file.

To Quixotique at least, the Constitution seems, while certainly not always, pretty clear in this instance.

Article 53:

Whenever a Leader is to be chosen for the Party, the Party must elect a new Leader according to the procedures set out in this Chapter (which is referred to in this Constitution as a "Leadership Vote").

Article 56:

(1) The Leader is elected at a National Leadership Convention with the delegates to that convention being elected in proportion to the popular direct vote received by each leadership contestant in accordance with this Constitution and the Party bylaws. ...

(2) At a delegate selection meeting to select delegates to a National Leadership Convention held in accordance with Section 63, each member of the Party who is entitled to vote at the meeting must be provided with a ballot that permits him or her both to vote directly for the leadership contestant of his or her choice and to vote for individual delegates...

Seems pretty obvious to me. What also seems obvious to me is that the Party (grassroots, rank and file, or er, um, duh - the membership), if given the opportunity to have their direct say as the Constitution provides, would likely do so in an overwhelmingly positive fashion for Mr. Ignatieff.

What better ratification, legitimization or whatever you want to call it, could you hope for than that? How much more membership engagement could you get than that? How much more personal investment in your leadership could you get than that? Pretty easy to accomplish all of your goals at once - and turn a perceived minority leadership into a majority one to boot.

Instead we are poised to de-legitimize an already illegitimate process even more. Again. And doing the new boss a huge disservice in the process.

Building castles in the air...

For those of you as familiar as Quixotique with Cervantes' most famous passages, you will understand why I do not, yet, and hope to never have to, provide the complete, relevant quotation today. But this proverbial phrase which has come to describe something that is no more than illusory, or a futile flight of fancy, no matter what effort spent in building it, is quite apt in describing reform and renewal efforts in the Liberal Party, certainly over the last 30 years.

This weekend, those of us who are members will begin discussions on yet another reform effort through En Famille, (certainly one of the better efforts at soliciting grassroots participation that the Party has seen, so regardless of your motivation or wariness, you should be encouraged to participate), however this will be a discussion with the Change Commission, which will feed to the Renewal Committee, who will develop recommended constitutional amendments to the National Executive who can (will) amend, reject or put forward amendments/proposals to the Convention. Dizzy yet?

You will be asked (by the Renewal Committee, not the Change Commission, which has a similar but disparate set of parameters to examine) to review certain processes in light of changes made at the 2006 Convention and to better help the party implement them - I guess you can't disagree - just help implement . Isn't that what we elected you to do? Isn't that what we trusted staff you hired to do?

That aside, were the "reforms" enacted in 2006 as "real" as they could have been? History (look down, look waaay down) in our Party shows us that the exact time to make reforms is NOT when we are making major leadership or other significant changes. Prospective "leaders" are too shy, or too fearful of participating in motivating and participating in changes that might anger or alienate groups (read delegates) that they will need on one day, and then forever forward during their terms, regardless of their views of democratic principles and an understanding of the nature of "party".

Further, but sooo related, the interests that we have allowed to become vested in our governing documents, but more importantly in our psyche, will never give up those interests in the greater interests of democracy. But for the youth wing of the party, we would have achieved some form of OMOV in 2006. The resolution was sunk by under 20 votes - but more importantly, it was sunk by the whipping of the youth vote; less than 15% of eligible delegates voted on that resolution in the Constitutional session. Quixotique can't help but wonder, if this is yet another example of "teach your children well".

There were also calls and recommendations (coming again to a theatre near you) to examine the federated nature of our party and the vested interests represented by the Commissions; all in Quixotique's humble opinon, massive impediments to the party's ability to connect to the bottom of it's pyramid; to truly be representative. I bet you think I refer to the membership of the party (and of course I do), but I am really referring to the electorate.

So reform; renewal; change; growth - whatever. Been there, done that; seen that movie (read that classic) before.

How so? What follows is a very lengthy (and admitedly biased) discussion of previous reforms endeavours in our party. If you can get through all of that (and I won't hold you to it), let me know if you think I am the only one looking at yet another renewal and reform process with the proverbial grain of salt...

Ready?

A wealth of information has been produced on the topic of party reform in Canada. A series of articles, news stories and commentary from the early 1980s consistently through to the present bemoan the Liberal Party’s internal disorganization. There have been Liberal Party internal reform discussion papers and proposed constitutional amendments and three special “constitutional conventions” between 1981 and 1992. Party reform has also been advocated in academic treatises too numerous to count, in the four-volume Royal Commission examination into Electoral Reform and Party Financing, in a number of statutory reports to Parliament by Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, and through several bills amending the Canada Elections Act since 1980.

Despite all of this, the body politic that is the Liberal Party of Canada has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to virtually all of it, and paid lip service to the rest.

It may be useful, at this juncture, to review “recent” history of reform and reform initiatives in the Liberal Party of Canada. This history, related to the power or force of individual membership begins in 1919 with the “election” of Mackenzie King as a leader selected by delegated convention, as opposed to parliamentary caucus. And, at a 1966 Policy Conference, the Liberals amended their Constitution to include a resolution establishing a process for a future Leadership Convention – a review of current leadership (more on this in other posts). In support of this resolution, a delegate at the conference argued, “it is very easy for a Party to have democracy when the Party is out of office. The real test of democracy in the Party is when the Party is in office.”

While the Liberals were the first party to adopt such a measure, the first action on this front began with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. In 1966, propelled by a desire to remove John Diefenbaker as Leader, the party instituted a review of the leadership by party members for the first time. Following that, as Andrew Coyne reminisces in a 2002 column, “[t]he ensuing years could be said to be the nearest thing to a golden age of party democracy. The conventions that chose Pierre Trudeau in 1968 and Joe Clark in 1976 were relatively open, unpredictable affairs; in both, the winner was the “outsider”, rather than the candidate of the party establishment. Yet both were clean races, at least by present day standards.”

In the Liberal Party, perhaps because of the lengthy tenure of Prime Minister Trudeau, perhaps because of the “champing-at-the-bit” ambitions of others, the next seminal reform-oriented event occurred at the 1982 National Convention, held at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. At that Convention, speaker after speaker - primarily from the youth wing of the party and primarily those employed on Parliament Hill – railed about the undue influence of caucus members and the Party elite in the affairs of the Party and government. According to journalist and author Susan Delacourt, this was Paul Martin Jr.’s coming out party. A young cabinet minister at the time, Lloyd Axworthy, was shouted down as he attempted to address a policy resolution at the mic. The key results of the Convention were twofold: the election of former MP and cabinet minister, Iona Campanolo, as the first (and only until, briefly, 2006-07) female President of the Party and the institution of the “Reform Commission.”

As the Reform Commission travelled coast-to-coast, examining the internal ails of the party, for three years or so, and before the Commission could report, two other, but just as seminal events occurred: the PC leadership in 1983 and that of the Liberal Party in 1984. Those who pour through newspaper archives – and those who simply lived it – will recall a deluge of stories about “drunks from the mission pouring off buses” and dead people showing up to vote at delegate selection meetings across the country. To paraphrase Andrew Coyne, the rot had set in.

The report of the Liberal Party’s Reform Commission at its special convention held in 1985 attempted to address, not only its mandated commission, but new exigencies imposed during this period related to the abuses reported in the intervening media stories.

The influence of “party elites” was removed from the governing document, the Party’s constitution. Unelected members of the Party’s National Executive were removed as “automatic” or ex-officio delegates to future conventions. The structure of the Party’s Executive was altered, discussion was held about the policy process, about national membership, in addition to many other related matters, but few truly substantive changes were made.

Many of the substantive changes that were made were, unfortunately, later undone. This process would repeat itself.

In 1987, as we approached an expected general election in 1988, concern set in. The need for, and pressure to find, candidates of high calibre, those who could present an alternate government to the electorate through their sheer impressiveness was great. Efforts to recruit such candidates across the country and had been quite successful, but in many instances the much sought after positive media coverage about the quality of the team being advanced was vastly overshadowed by the stories of huge meetings and shenanigans of the highest order in the effort for them to win their nominations. “Special interests” were beginning to understand the power of mass recruitment and instant membership in ensuring the selection of candidates that met their own, rather than the Party’s policy goals. Well organized “single issue” candidates such as Tom Wappel, who snatched the nomination from high profile social advocate Patrick Johnston (who beyond being recruited, had been groomed for candidacy) flattened the hopes of candidates like Johnston and the party alike. Tom Wappel would go on to contest the Party’s leadership barely a year later.

By 1989, following another electoral defeat and pressure from party militants and the media, the Party had once again determined that action was required to bolster the health of the party, and another special Constitutional Convention was called for that fall. High on the agenda for examination was the entire concept of membership in, and the nature of, the Federation that is the Liberal Party of Canada. John Turner’s resignation as Leader of the Party intervened and eventually the Constitutional Convention was postponed and held together with the Leadership Convention that elected Jean Chrétien in June of 1990.

As often happens with “intervening events”, with the attention of the Party organization, the public and the media on leadership and leadership processes, the focus for fixing the Party’s Constitution shifted to immediate concerns and once again, vested interest. In the lead-up process the Party held six “Leadership Forums” across the country, where workshops and debates amongst the leadership contenders were held on both policy and “Party issues”. Even at that time, the Party’s Forum Primer on party issues recognized the problems the party was facing:

“Hotly contested nomination meetings in recent years have, in many parts of the country, become controversial and often embarrassing for the Party. The current practise of the individual who is most able to sign up new members in a short period of time, generally winning a nomination, is fraught with problems. Is it truly democratic for large numbers of people to join a party only for one very specific purpose? Should more emphasis be placed on the member who has a proven commitment to the party? In a perfect world, a candidate would be chosen on the basis of ideas, ideology, societal representativeness, and organization; not purely organization.”

And yet, the most significant amendments adopted at the Constitutional Convention related to re-instating the ex-officio delegate status of unelected executive members such as the Financial Management Committee, and the creation of and provision of delegates to a new Aboriginal Commission. Both of these sets of amendments were in fact retroactive. In other words, the Constitution which did not recognize these individuals as delegates to the Convention when the convention commenced, did recognize them by the time they were ready to cast their Leadership ballots.

The first convention following the Jean Chrétien’s election as Leader was set for the winter of 1992. Another election was expected at any time. While complaints about the process which selected him as Leader and pleas for the Party to complete its unfinished business were important, the Leader, mindful of the one process that could impact his tenure the most, the nomination of candidates, created a third task force in 10 years to examine the Party’s Constitution. The task force was to make proposals to another Constitutional Convention to be, again, held in concert with the Biennial. From both a policy, and an organizational perspective, the convention was shaping up to be a battle between vested and special interests.

With over 100 proposed amendments to virtually every article of the Constitution, and an entire day devoted to its discussion, while the Party did institute a national “registry” of members (a compromise solution to a long sought after national membership with standard requirements across the country) it failed to make significant changes to the nomination process. Instead of entrenching the principles under which candidates would fairly be nominated, the party chose to move virtually the entire setting of parameters for, and administration of nominations from the constitution to “rules” which would be developed under the auspices of National and Provincial/Territorial Campaign committees headed by individuals appointed by the Leader. Some read this move as giving a Leader the flexibility required to respond to rapidly changing political circumstances. Others viewed it as a retreat from democracy in the Party and the protection of an ability to manipulate processes to suit circumstances. Principle gave way to consideration:

Out of 9 in the Party’s 2004 Constitution provisions to guide the Campaign Committee in carrying out its responsibilities, only one (provisions relating to financial limits for expenditures by candidates) could only be viewed as a requirement. The others can only be interpreted as guidelines, given the language used: to consider the establishment of cut-off dates, appropriate to the provincial or territorial organization, to consider making membership lists available, to consider holding all-candidates’ debates, to consider gender equity and minority representation.

Check out the 2006 version. Let Quixotique know what you think. If you can’t do that, then, well, I’d better see you over at En Famille.