“Democracy.
That would be nice.”
A favourite line of one of our parliamentarians, though ironically she seems unperturbed by the democratic deficit running rampant in GPEW.
What conditions would we need for actual democracy to exist in any political party?
The truth
Firstly the truth – in order for members to participate fully and effectively, they need to know what’s going on in the Party. The party fails miserably on this count, partly because telling the truth can get you either a No Fault Suspension or an expulsion, partly because many of the communication lines are controlled by a small faction.
Then we need to celebrate disagreement and debate, because it’s an excellent way to keep developing ideas. Shut down debate – stagnate. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Trying to get a topic debated at GPEW conference is fraught with difficulties; some subjects appear to be taboo, and the mechanisms that control which motions get onto the agenda are also controlled by that small clique.
Equality of access
Equality of access to conference is needed in a democracy, but, despite some funds being available for people on low incomes, that equality just doesn’t exist in GPEW. Attendees at conference are self-selected; they require the time and the money, which few enough members have.
A solution would be to switch to a delegate conference, where members could, in their local party, debate the motions going to conference before sending their selected delegates to cast the votes of the local party. A bit long-winded, but much more likely to produce balanced, long-lasting policies and with the added bonus of membership buy-in.
Equality of access also applies to those people with mobility issues who are often unable to access the stage; this is totally unacceptable in any conference situation.
Party officer elections
The question of party officer elections can also upset the workings of party democracy. No person should hold more than one position at any given level; and no person should serve beyond two terms. This seems eminently sensible because all parties need to guard against conflicts of interest and to establish a system of checks and balances that can’t be derailed by an individual sitting on two or more bodies. In GPEW there are some individuals on more than one body, and others who have served more than two terms, which creates some jeopardy for the Party.
Disciplinary system
All Parties have a disciplinary system; that system relates to the democratic life of the Party in the way it’s administered. Ideally, the system is rarely used, and only for instances of criminality or serious inappropriate behaviour.
In GPEW it is used as a political tool to silence the expression of perfectly legal views. The system is in the hands of the clique, and they don’t want views contrary to the policies they’ve succeeded in passing being aired in public, lest others seek to change those policies. The disciplinary system should be run by an outside body, not by members elected (by the tiny percentage of members who actually vote in these elections) to the Disciplinary Committee.
In summary, GPEW fails on the truth count; it fails on the debate count; it fails on the equality count; it fails on the checks and balances count; and it fails on the disciplinary count.
There is a huge democratic deficit in GPEW.
So yes, Natalie.
Democracy.
That would be nice.