2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada
Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies
G21-B001 Members to Elect Deputy Leaders and Shadow Cabinet
Submitter Name
Dianne Varga
This proposal was discussed in the workshop during Phase 2 of the VGM. However, there was not enough time for this proposal to be voted on in plenary by the members during Phase 2. Therefore, this proposal will not be included in the ratification vote.
Proposal
To replace Bylaws 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 with the following text:
- Party Members shall elect members to Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet.
- Party Members shall elect two Deputy Leaders.
- Party Members may replace members of the Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet, or Deputy Leaders, subject to appeal.
Objective
To empower Party Members:
(i) to elect members to the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet,
(ii) to elect Deputy Leaders, and
(iii) to remove members of the Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet, or Deputy Leaders.
Benefit
The changes will:
(i) strengthen participatory democracy by empowering Party Members to decide who will represent them,
(ii) underscore the role participatory democracy plays in providing the basis of unity for the Global Green Movement, and
(iii) reinforce the Party’s constitutional purpose of advancing its values and basis of unity.
Supporting Comments from Submitter
Participatory democracy is primarily concerned with citizens being afforded an opportunity to participate in decision-making on important matters that affect their lives. An example of a Green party that has democratic processes more fortified than ours in Canada is Die Grünen of Germany. Die Grünen’s Public Relations Department has said that the two co-chairs and two deputy chairs of the party executive are elected by the 800+ delegates of the party congress, while the two co-chairs and five deputy chairs of the parliamentary group are elected by the members of the parliamentary group itself. Almost all MPs (49 out of 67) have a role as spokesperson for a specific field of policy, and these positions are filled through negotiation and agreement among the MPs and the leadership of the parliamentary group.
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand also has democratic processes stronger than our own. Their Correspondence Officer has said the executive structure includes two co-leaders and no deputies; the co-leaders are appointed at the annual general meeting by delegates of the representative branches across the country. Candidates for MP positions are themselves selected and ranked by the party membership, and voted upon in the country’s general election. Apart from this concrete evidence of the use of electoral processes and negotiation to determine executive and parliamentary representation, it is self-evident that if the Green Party of Canada empowered its grassroots Party Members to decide through electoral processes who will represent them as Deputy Leaders and Shadow Cabinet members, our participatory democracy would be stronger – stronger than it is now, stronger than the version seen in Germany, and as strong as the version seen in New Zealand.
Green Value(s)
Participatory Democracy
Relation to Existing Policy
Rescind and replace an existing policy. This proposal would rescind and replace Bylaws 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Jason Scott
Please see the discussion under B002, which has a somewhat similar proposal. This change would create a complex and cumbersome administrative process, another layer of elections. At B002, makes a counter proposal that the Leader submit a list, FC vets it and membership accepts / rejects it wholesale. This retains the spirit of participatory democracy but removes the burden and improves the odds of a well-functioning cabinet. (One can imagine a large constellation of possible cabinets elected by members; the odds that we members will pick one that works effectively seems low.) The Leader is much better placed to propose a cabinet and seek our endorsement.
I also note that this will be more practical once we Greens have a sizable caucus, and eventually form government. Having members choose the cabinet implies a campaign among newly elected MPs to "win" cabinet positions when they should be learning the ropes on the Hill and developing as a team.
Hi Jason. To elect deputy leaders and shadow cabinet would not necessarily lead to a cumbersome administrative process. Although policy proposal submitters are warned against including strategy, tactics or prescriptive details in their proposals, I myself don't see why these positions could not be filled during the same electoral process that sees the leader elected. In the US, for example, mid-term elections have electors vote for all 435 congressional reps and 33 to 34 senators at the federal level. Mid-terms also have electors vote for governors and legislators at the state level. Our single leader, two deputies, and 20 or so cabinet members fall far short of this.
As for the difficulty you perceive in members electing a cabinet that will work effectively, in New Zealand, the party membership selects and ranks the candidates for the MP positions. (In NZ there's no cabinet per se. It's the MPs that are the policy spokespersons.) There is this precedent, then, that party members are able to identify a competent cadre of policy spokespersons.
As for your idea that the leader should propose a cabinet and seek the endorsement of the membership, that's a top-down approach that's antithetical to the one I'm suggesting. Moreover, there's an abundance of research that shows that people can get tied up in knots in situations where they have to say 'no' rather than 'yes'. I think it would be quite difficult for the membership to say to a leader 'no way, we refuse your picks, back to the drawing board for you'.
Loading comments ...