And it's Russel Norman. So we'll maybe see a bit more noise on social justice issues (which doesn't bother me in the slightest), but I don't really expect this to compromise the Greens' strong stance on the environment at all.
Meanwhile, the Manawatu Standard's editorial today praises the Greens for having a proper internal democracy - and criticises the other parties for their lack of it:
The pity of it is that the old parties don't seem to much care for what their members think, using them mainly as campaign fodder once every three years and pretty much ignoring them the rest of the time.Sure, there are still party conferences, and even some solemn discussion of remits, but not a blind bit of notice is taken of any of it by MPs if it doesn't suit them, and nor, for that matter, are they required to take member's concerns on board.
Times used to be different, and party delegates felt valued because they knew their MPs were seriously listening and even felt obliged to try and put into action what was decided at conference, but that kind of meaningful two-way consultation has long since fallen into disrepair. As for deciding who leads, the power to decide that remains very firmly in the grip of MPs, as it always has.
Whenever there is a change of leadership, members are expected to blindly go along with it regardless of their own feelings about the individual just dispensed with and the new person in charge. And, of course, it is taken for granted that such important business is nothing to do with the rank-and-file.
This attitude from Parliamentary wings is IMHO one of the key drivers behind the fall in political party membership; it's certainly the reason I've never joined one. Why sign up simply to be ignored? Why contribute if your interests are not going to be taken into account? Why participate in such a one-sided organisation? It is, bluntly, a mug's game, which only the terminally stupid or exploitative and ambitious would ever bother playing.
The Greens at least understand that a party must actively involve and listen to its members if it wants their support. While today's decision won't please everyone, they at least got to have some say in it - which is a damn sight more than other parties would give them.
That's a bit harsh! That's not my experience of Party people (and I don't mean just from Labour, but I've known members of Act, National, Alliance, Greens etc).
ReplyDeleteWhile Labour doesn't elect our Parliamentary leaders, Party members do elect our Party leaders (NZ Council, Party President) and direct that organisation at annual conference through delegate members (the same process the Greens have just followed).
Tony: It is however widely recognised by academics who study political parties in New Zealand. Raymond Miller, in Party Politics in New Zealand even quotes Margaret Wilson as saying that (during her tenure as Labour Party president) "party representatives were viewed as the poor relations from the wrong side of the tracks who were invited to the family gathering only out of duty". He also quotes an earlier writer, R.S. Milne, as saying that "caucus treats the wishes of the [party] organization with about as much respect as the management in paternalistic business firms accords to workers' suggestions; ideas for minor improvements are in order, but advice on how to run the business would be regarded as impertinence".
ReplyDeleteAnd moving away from academic literature, I think the 80's and 90's demonstrated strongly and publicly exactly how little influence party organisations have over "their" representatives in Parliament.
Act had a primary! It went to the members and published the numbers.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you to have to sell policy to the public and my experience is that a lot of party members don't understand that. And the selling has to come from the MP's who are reliant on the 'sale' for their job! It's a difficult one.
Gooner: Indeed they did. But you should also note that the caucus reserved the right to ignore it they they felt that they knew better than their members.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is not just for show. It must be real, or people will abandon you. ACT members may be happy with the level of democratic input they had (and again, its more than most parties would give them), but it was still far from satisfactory.
More true of the 80s, but much less so now. In fact, since 1999 the Parliamentary Wing has been very in line with the Party wing. And a lot of that is the result of the party wing fight back in the early 90s (culminating in the election of Helen as leader).
ReplyDelete