The Green Party Leadership Debate
The Green Party is currently balloting its membership on the question as to whether to change its structure to create a post of leader (albeit with much more limited powers than the leaders of other UK political parties). Having considered both sides of the argument, I am against this change. I was preparing to post my reasons for the record. However, I can hardly do better than starting by quoting from this most inspiring article by Jenny Jones and Jonathan Dixon (if you have seen it before, read on for further comments of my own).
"... We live in a world where gross consumerism is promoted as something to aspire to, so we are fundamentally challenging the political and economic culture around us. We are seeking to influence not only the way people vote, but the ways that they think and act. Such change does not happen quickly, or effortlessly ...
Our unsustainable society isn't only the result of government policies and corporate actions. It exists because people are disempowered. The problems seem too massive, and modern life too difficult. It's far easier to bury your head in the sand.
But the Green Party doesn't accept this. At the heart of our philosophy is a call for people to take ownership of their political future, and to actively seek to change things for the better. It is for this reason that the Green Party has never had a single leader. It's not because we don't trust or have high expectations of people. In fact the opposite is true. We know that Green politics needs confident advocates in every community - inspiring and leading by example from the grassroots upwards. That means we need to recognise and nurture all those members who have talents, who can take initiative and who can communicate our message.
By contrast, conventional political structures are disempowering. Party leaders make decisions, and the rest of the members follow."
I think they have hit the nail on the head.
The Media - Friend or ...
The proposal to have a leader seems to me driven simply primarily by the view that it's necessary to improve communications via the media. However, I feel that argument is flawed for several reasons.
In many areas, the media sets the agenda and can have a vested interest. For example, in the recent debate on inheritance tax it was very rare to see the argument put forward that the tax can be socially beneficial in helping create a more level playing field (reducing the amount of wealth that accumulates to people who have done nothing to deserve it). It seemed a largely one-sided debate leading me to suspect that many influential journalists were likely beneficiaries of a rise in the thresholds.
I agree the Green Party needs to work with and through the media, but I think it's even more important to work outside it, by grass-roots campaigning. The former can be achieved without a leader, and I believe the latter is far better achieved by encouraging individuals throughout the party to bring out leadership in themselves and others. I don't see how we can achieve the change we need without this.
If we have a leader then there may be too much focus by the media on the personality rather than the party and its policies. We saw that with Menzies Campbell. If we re-fashion ourselves to accommodate the media we will do well if the media likes the Party and its leader. We will not have any control over the situation if that changes.
An Alternative
If we are struggling to explain 'Principal Speaker', there are probably alternative titles. Why not simply 'Spokesperson'? And why not allow more than two? If one year we have six excellent communicators willing to stand, why don't we elect them all? Then rather than Siân Berry getting bogged down with "I'm not a leader, I'm a Principal Speaker" explanations she could simply say "We don't have a leader. We have a manifesto and a number of spokespersons including myself. Now what would you like to ask?"
How Could the Green Party Govern Without a Leader?
I have been asked what would happen if sentiment suddenly shifted dramatically towards the Green Party and enough MPs were elected to form a majority government. How would we govern without a leader? To my mind, a Prime Minister would be needed, but I see nothing wrong with the Green MPs convening after the election and selecting a respected and experienced individual from amongst their ranks to perform a largely co-ordinating role. I would envisage that the Prime Minister would appoint (and, periodically, reshuffle) the government, chair meetings and ensure that the government worked together, but would largely take a backroom role and allow cabinet ministers to take the lead in, and be the spokesperson for, own area. The Green MPs could re-select the Prime Minister whenever they wished.
We actually see something very similar in conventional politics at local government level. For example, most people in North Hertfordshire don't know that Cllr. Smith is the leader of the Conservatives. Those people who vote Conservative do so because they support that party or because they like the candidate standing in their ward under the Conservative banner. There's nothing to say that Cllr. Smith will necessarily end up as the leader of the council if the Conservatives win a majority - the local party makes no pledges to that effect. If Cllr. Smith did not have the support of the majority of Conservative councillors who happen to be elected at the start of the civic year then the group of Conservative councillors can select someone else to lead the council from within their ranks. That approach could surely work equally well for any political party at any level.
One Final Drawback of an Elected Leader
That leads me on to one final point. The proposals for creating a leader are limited in that a leader would be constrained by the philosophical basis, agreed policies and the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society. On the face of it, that might sound attractive, but to my mind it is actually a weakness. Unfortunately real-life politics requires flexibility to deviate sometimes from previously agreed positions to take account of events that have recently arisen, or of information that has become available since a policy is agreed. I believe that elected Green representatives (such as MPs) should be entitled individually and collectively to deviate to a limited degree from a manifesto if they have considered their position and feel it is justified and consistent with the Core Principles. I feel comfortable with a group of elected representatives taking such a decision pending further consideration at the party's next conference. However, a leader would either be unable to deviate (as is proposed) and therefore put in difficult positions, or would need more power to deviate than has been proposed. I find neither satisfactory.
So I will be voting 'No. If you are interested in other arguments for both sides, the 'Yes' camp can be found here and the 'No' camp can be found here.
"... We live in a world where gross consumerism is promoted as something to aspire to, so we are fundamentally challenging the political and economic culture around us. We are seeking to influence not only the way people vote, but the ways that they think and act. Such change does not happen quickly, or effortlessly ...
Our unsustainable society isn't only the result of government policies and corporate actions. It exists because people are disempowered. The problems seem too massive, and modern life too difficult. It's far easier to bury your head in the sand.
But the Green Party doesn't accept this. At the heart of our philosophy is a call for people to take ownership of their political future, and to actively seek to change things for the better. It is for this reason that the Green Party has never had a single leader. It's not because we don't trust or have high expectations of people. In fact the opposite is true. We know that Green politics needs confident advocates in every community - inspiring and leading by example from the grassroots upwards. That means we need to recognise and nurture all those members who have talents, who can take initiative and who can communicate our message.
By contrast, conventional political structures are disempowering. Party leaders make decisions, and the rest of the members follow."
I think they have hit the nail on the head.
The Media - Friend or ...
The proposal to have a leader seems to me driven simply primarily by the view that it's necessary to improve communications via the media. However, I feel that argument is flawed for several reasons.
In many areas, the media sets the agenda and can have a vested interest. For example, in the recent debate on inheritance tax it was very rare to see the argument put forward that the tax can be socially beneficial in helping create a more level playing field (reducing the amount of wealth that accumulates to people who have done nothing to deserve it). It seemed a largely one-sided debate leading me to suspect that many influential journalists were likely beneficiaries of a rise in the thresholds.
I agree the Green Party needs to work with and through the media, but I think it's even more important to work outside it, by grass-roots campaigning. The former can be achieved without a leader, and I believe the latter is far better achieved by encouraging individuals throughout the party to bring out leadership in themselves and others. I don't see how we can achieve the change we need without this.
If we have a leader then there may be too much focus by the media on the personality rather than the party and its policies. We saw that with Menzies Campbell. If we re-fashion ourselves to accommodate the media we will do well if the media likes the Party and its leader. We will not have any control over the situation if that changes.
An Alternative
If we are struggling to explain 'Principal Speaker', there are probably alternative titles. Why not simply 'Spokesperson'? And why not allow more than two? If one year we have six excellent communicators willing to stand, why don't we elect them all? Then rather than Siân Berry getting bogged down with "I'm not a leader, I'm a Principal Speaker" explanations she could simply say "We don't have a leader. We have a manifesto and a number of spokespersons including myself. Now what would you like to ask?"
How Could the Green Party Govern Without a Leader?
I have been asked what would happen if sentiment suddenly shifted dramatically towards the Green Party and enough MPs were elected to form a majority government. How would we govern without a leader? To my mind, a Prime Minister would be needed, but I see nothing wrong with the Green MPs convening after the election and selecting a respected and experienced individual from amongst their ranks to perform a largely co-ordinating role. I would envisage that the Prime Minister would appoint (and, periodically, reshuffle) the government, chair meetings and ensure that the government worked together, but would largely take a backroom role and allow cabinet ministers to take the lead in, and be the spokesperson for, own area. The Green MPs could re-select the Prime Minister whenever they wished.
We actually see something very similar in conventional politics at local government level. For example, most people in North Hertfordshire don't know that Cllr. Smith is the leader of the Conservatives. Those people who vote Conservative do so because they support that party or because they like the candidate standing in their ward under the Conservative banner. There's nothing to say that Cllr. Smith will necessarily end up as the leader of the council if the Conservatives win a majority - the local party makes no pledges to that effect. If Cllr. Smith did not have the support of the majority of Conservative councillors who happen to be elected at the start of the civic year then the group of Conservative councillors can select someone else to lead the council from within their ranks. That approach could surely work equally well for any political party at any level.
One Final Drawback of an Elected Leader
That leads me on to one final point. The proposals for creating a leader are limited in that a leader would be constrained by the philosophical basis, agreed policies and the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society. On the face of it, that might sound attractive, but to my mind it is actually a weakness. Unfortunately real-life politics requires flexibility to deviate sometimes from previously agreed positions to take account of events that have recently arisen, or of information that has become available since a policy is agreed. I believe that elected Green representatives (such as MPs) should be entitled individually and collectively to deviate to a limited degree from a manifesto if they have considered their position and feel it is justified and consistent with the Core Principles. I feel comfortable with a group of elected representatives taking such a decision pending further consideration at the party's next conference. However, a leader would either be unable to deviate (as is proposed) and therefore put in difficult positions, or would need more power to deviate than has been proposed. I find neither satisfactory.
So I will be voting 'No. If you are interested in other arguments for both sides, the 'Yes' camp can be found here and the 'No' camp can be found here.