This week I'm starting another series of interviews and articles about the "mechanics" of party politics. I'm doing this because I'm concerned about what seems to be a very low level of understanding among the general population about what it means to be in a political party and participate in the democratic process.
I saw a lot of this while I was in the Green Party---both by non-members and members alike. I think that this fuels a lot of the angry complaints that I hear from people who say "politicians are all crooks", "all they care about are their pensions", etc. I don't think that anyone should be surprised by this state of affairs. As of 2001, only two percent of Canadians are actually members of political parties. (See p-52 of Activating the Citizen: Dilemmas of Participation in Europe and Canada.) And remember, many (if the not the majority) of these people only join to vote for a particular candidate in a leadership campaign. And if most people aren't active party members, don't expect the legacy media to give citizens any idea about how political parties work!
Among other things, I think this collective ignorance also fuels the dangerous tendencies of people to seek out a demagogue who will arrive on his white horse to save the membership from all the tedious work of having to build the party and then educate the public through door-knocking, public meetings, and, events like summer barbecues. Of course I'm talking about Donald Trump. But Doug Ford and Elizabeth May are also examples of people who parachuted into a party and took it over without wasting any time actually getting to know much about it first.
I really don't like this tendency. That's because a great many of the checks and balances which preserve our democracy come from its leaders being "known quantities" who can be trusted with power. Even with the best of intentions, outsiders simply cannot possibly know enough to be good at the complex task of running a political party---let alone a government.
My hope is that if I can publish a series of articles showing just how important a political party can be, and how much work goes into making it a functional part of society, I will encourage at least a few people to join a party themselves. And even better, I hope that some people will be hesitant to support an "outsider" who doesn't have any ties to an existing party structure.
&&&&
My first conversation introduces a woman by the name of Dr. Michelle Bowman, who is seeking the nomination for the Guelph Electoral District Association for the Green Party of Canada. I thought it would be important for people to realize that a huge part of being a politician involves getting elected. Moreover, this is a far from trivial task---even getting the nomination can be a lot of work.
 | |
| Michelle Bowman, photo provided by her and cropped by Bill Hulet. |
I say this, because running for office is a very difficult, time consuming, and, expensive job. Moreover, unless you are in one of a small number of "safe" ridings, getting elected to a large extent is based on luck. And if you are in one of those, the nomination race can be just as gruelling as a full-blown election campaign. As such, I thought that nominations would be a good start.
Having offered that intro, here's Michelle to speak for herself.
Some explanation: the "Mountain Parks" that Bowman says she worked at are the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks which are registered as a World Heritage Site through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). If readers are interested in learning more about Focus on Nature, there's a nice website to check out. And here's link to the official website for Last Child in the Woods.
Bowman's answer makes some pretty important points that readers should understand. First of all, she has credentials and has worked in complex, extended institutions---so she's proved that she is intelligent and has the organizational ability to do the job. Secondly, she is someone who has people skills so she can relate to ordinary folks at the front door. Finally, she has personal connections within the community that will help understand local issues and tap into a pool of supporters. These are important qualities that a successful politician needs to have.
Why someone wants to run is extremely important. That's because the enormous workload required to do the job well, plus the extreme forbearance one needs to represent and deal with a wide variety of often extremely emotional people, requires a huge personal commitment to "the big picture". This isn't to say that all politicians or elected officials are saints, but to do a decent job instead of a terrible one requires some pretty above-average qualities. And you simply cannot make the effort if it's about "me" instead of "we".
Bowman mentions Steven Harper's attempt to deal with environmental issues by stifling scientists. This was a very big problem from about 2008 to 2015 where the Conservatives seemed bound and determined to destroy the capacity of federal environmental research. It was also aimed at shutting down the ability of government scientists to share their findings with the general public.
This was such a concern for civil servants that their union commissioned an Environics study to objectively measure the level of concern among government researchers. The report seems to have been taken off the union website, but luckily I found a copy on the Wayback Machine. Reading it, you can see exactly what Ms. Bowman is talking about. For example:
Environment Canada, for example, has seen its science budget cut by $125 million (17.5%); the National Research Council of Canada, $129 million (17.2%); Fisheries and Oceans, $28 million (10.2%). Similarly, some but not all departmental cuts have included the elimination of FTE [Full Time Equivalent---ie: a full time job] science positions: e.g., National Research Council of Canada (798 FTEs), Environment Canada (159 FTEs), Fisheries and Oceans (73 FTEs).
It also mentions those libraries that Bowman talked about:
They include the loss of storehouses of scientific knowledge and information, including the closure of seven libraries at DFO [Department of Fisheries and Oceans], six at NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] and the consolidation of five Parks Canada libraries into one at Environment Canada.
This had a terrible impact on the moral of government scientists, as was found by Environics polling:
Over 9 out of 10 scientists (94%) surveyed feel recent cuts have had a negative impact on overall science capacity in the federal government. Nearly 6 out of 10 (59%) believe the impact is major. In addition, over three-quarters of federal scientists (78%) report cuts to capacity in their own workplace. In the words of one scientist: “In 31 years on the job, never have I witnessed such systematic destruction of the scientific capability of the federal public service.” In the words of another: “Science has been cut to the bone; there is no way to reduce further without just stopping.”
Not only was research cut that would provide evidence at odds with Conservative ideology, the scientists left were put under the control of government "minders" whose job it was to ensure that they never said anything that contradicted "Harper-speak". This ranged from onerous bureaucratic control of communications with other scientists,
Not only have more restrictive policies compromised the ability of federal scientists to collaborate with international colleagues (73% are concerned that new departmental policies on intellectual property, permission to publish, and collaboration will compromise their ability to collaborate with international colleagues), but cuts to science and so-called red tape have limited scientists’ ability to attend conferences, courses and other events directly related to their work. According to the survey, only 36% of scientists are approved to go to such conferences, courses and events, and less than one quarter (24%) of scientists feel that the approval process for conferences, courses and other events is fair, transparent and performed on a timely basis.
to having Soviet-style minders listening in on scientists while having phone conversations with journalists. (This is mentioned in the YouTube video below).
This was such an important moment in the evolution of Canadian environmental policy-making that I think that readers who might not be fully aware of what was going on might benefit from watching the following round-table that Steve Paikin at TV Ontario (TVO) chaired on the subject in 2013. (It's one of more interesting ones that I've seen.)
Strictly from a political point of view, I think it is important that candidates have a serious reason for running for public office. It is just too much work for too small a chance of success for anyone to get involved in the process unless they have a deep-seated reason for running. Of course, I'm not suggesting that candidates all have to have the same motivation for throwing their hat in the ring. But to run and run well, my personal belief is that they should see it as a "vocation" rather than a job or something to pad a resume.
Perhaps even more importantly, I think it is really important for elected officials to have some deep, burning reason for running because if they don't the tendency will be to too readily "trade off" policy in order to win office. The whole raison d’être for Greens is to stop treating environmental issues as just another special interest that can be traded off against something else in order to win an election. If idealists won't run, we leave the door open for opportunists---and that can be a disaster.
Unfortunately, we've recently seen some elected officials run and win big who seem to have gotten involved for spurious reasons. For example, it appears that Donald Trump never expected or even originally wanted to get elected president. Instead, the game plan was to use the campaign to build up his brand and fan base so after he lost to Clinton he could launch a new right-wing media empire. Similarly, Doug Ford inherited a political machine from both his father and brother that he used to launch his leadership bid. Beyond that, his motivation seemed to primarily be aimed at tearing-down the Liberals and Toronto City Hall---who he probably thinks never treated him with the respect he deserves. Honestly, I simply don't see either as being adequate reasons to get involved in politics.
&&&&
I put a lot of work into this blog. If you can afford it, why not subscribe? Pay Pal and Patreon make it easy to do.
&&&&
It's important to understand that running for a nomination is an institutional process. Michelle mentions that she had to be vetted by the Green Party of Canada bureaucracy to ensure that she doesn't have any skeletons in her closet and is considered a "good fit" for the party. By law, the ultimate decision about whether or not a person is good enough for the party is made by the leader---who has to sign the nomination papers to get someone onto the ballot. Some people believe that this gives the party leader too much power (for example, Michael Chong). But even if this power rested in the local Electoral District Association, I think it is still a good thing to put candidates under a microscope to ensure that something very surprising doesn't pop up in the campaign.
Just to suggest two examples of why this is a good idea, I suspect that many people in the Conservative Party of Ontario wish they'd done a better job vetting Randy Hillier when he first ran. Then they wouldn't have had to kick him out of the caucus. Similarly, I suspect that many federal Conservatives believe that their party dodged a bullet when Max Bernier failed in his bid to lead the federal Tories.
It's important for a candidate to have some feel for the greater party structure. That's because running a campaign is much, much more than just writing down a bunch of policy ideas and registering to get onto the ballot. There has to be a national presence too, and that can only come from a "head office" that can co-ordinate campaigns, build a profile with the national media, and so on. It is also useful to get a feel for the leader of the party.
So check off a couple more boxes for Bowman.
Building your nomination team is a very good "dry run" for seeing how well you can do in the general election. Bowman is identifying a small number of people who can fill key positions and making sure that they get the training necessary to "hit the ground running". She's also building a list of folks who can fill important non-leadership jobs. These people can be tapped when the time is right. But she is also being careful not to "burn out" these volunteers by asking too much of them too early in the process. She knows that the formal nomination race won't come until August and that the general election will then come at the discretion of the Prime Minister.
So it pays for the candidate to "keep her powder dry". She doesn't want to peak too early in the race.
And the final comments show an interest in a broad range of issues that show that Bowman sees the value of creating a "big tent" while at the same time staking out a position for the candidate. Green Party candidates have tended to have more messaging leeway than other parties---probably because of the lack of centralized infrastructure as much as trying to do politics in a new way. As a result, past Guelph Greens have sometimes shown an almost small "c" conservative emphasis on market-based solutions and support for small businesses. As a new generation of voters have come of age, I suspect that this messaging won't be as effective. Instead, I think young people are interested in dealing with inequality of various forms and less likely see the market-based solutions as being the answer.
My gut instinct is that politicians willing to suggest innovative experiments in government policy instead of neo-liberal ideology will do well. So again, Bowman seems to be setting her campaign sails to harness prevailing winds---an essential part of any winning electoral strategy.
&&&&
Thanks Bill. I really appreciate your thoughtful questions and well researched commentary. And I echo your final thought - Let’s deal with the climate emergency, yesterday!
ReplyDelete