This is perhaps the most common question faced by those of us who are openly expressing concern about the lack of member consultation and engagement in the process of developing this proposed constitution.
This Biennial Convention has the potential to be the most divisive in many years. However, those opposing it see no option. When the issue first arose there was much anticipation that the vote would split along a “generational divide” however this has not proven to be the case. Instead, positions have largely developed along what what has been termed “experiential divide”.
Our party has recently gone through many significant changes. We have seen a loss of long time leaders as they have willingly moved aside for new enthusiastic workers from campaigns. The party that some were giving up for dead has resurged to capture a majority government. If you listen to the leadership of the party, this success was the result of one small group of individuals at the top of the party. Their strategy of managing the “Air wars” and the Leader single handedly achieved the result in which the rest of us so foolishly believed we had played a part.
So now this same small group surrounding our party Leader and Prime Minister, have decided the time is right to consolidate control of the party at the very top. Beliefs that once resounded throughout the party that caused published reports to resound with statements such as; “EDAs are the home for all of our members. They are the centres of Party activity. They are composed of dedicated and idealistic volunteers. Incredibly, all too often, they are also lost in National Party discussions and decisionmaking(sic). Structural renewal must therefore begin with a “return to ridings” with EDAs as the most valuable components of the National Party.” or “We do not wish to contemplate the effects on our country of a weakened, top-heavy Party. Rather, we are determined to once again challenge our Party to challenge the status quo and opt for a strong, decentralized volunteer-based institution.” have been ploughed under in the rush to grab power by a few individuals.
It has been said in recent weeks that this proposed constitution must pass because “we can’t allow Justin to lose in front of the national media”. This is perhaps where the cult of personality has taken its strongest hold. When dedicated Liberals feel that it is more acceptable to allow for the entire loss of the Liberal Party than to tolerate one embarrassing episode for our leader. We spent 9 years railing against a party which structured itself to centralise control within a small circle around the Leader, which sought to command from ‘on high’ with omnibus documents, which changed the entire face of society with the stroke of a single pen. Yet, when our own party seeks to consolidate power in similar fashion we find words to excuse and apologize for similar behaviours.
Our leadership claim they have consulted with the membership. They claim a decade of engagement and studies provide them the social contract which Justin promised that he would not act without. The reality however is very different. Read the documents hosted on this site under The Documents of the Case – Required Reading
The truth of the matter is that our party cannot afford to have this document pass. While there has been much discussion about what this proposed constitution will bring to the party, there has been less discussion about what we will lose. Watch for a future article coming soon discussing the loses we will suffer as a party and as a movement if we sacrifice our future.
While, in my view, there are many reasons for voting no, there is one overwhelming one. This entire omnibus document was constructed without the consultation or engagement of the broader membership of the party. Membership consultation does not mean discussing proposed changes with some PTA Presidents and Commission Chairs, rejecting all efforts to edit or amend the document then decree from on high. It means real and substantial consultation.
