Last weekend’s delegated convention of New Democratic Party members, the event that ended party leader Thomas Mulcair’s leadership through an effective vote of no confidence, is in the tradition of political parties in this country and others whose parliamentary democracies are based on the “Westminister Model” in the United Kingdom.
The grassroots membership of political parties in our system decides who will lead their party.
The objective is, usually, that that person should lead the party to form the government and so he/she will become the prime minister (nationally) or a premier (provincially).
And just as party members, who can qualify to be delegates representing their local riding associations, meet to help elect their party leader, so do they, from time to time, meet to fire an unsuccessful party leader, just as they did last weekend at the NDP national convention in Edmonton. NDP national delegates will come together in two years time, it will be to select Mr. Mulcair’s successor.
The national Liberal party, on the other hand, the one led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been floating the idea of shelving its century-and-a-half traditional status as a political party, where members pay a token annual fee, and instead brand itself as a “movement” – open to all, no token annual party membership dues.
If it moves ahead, this would represent a monumental break with tradition, and not only the Liberal party’s traditions but those similar legacies of all other major national and provincial political parties.
How would a movement, if the party embraces this concept, deal with the periodic votes of confidence in leadership, which are definitely required from time to time so that the country knows that the leader has its party’s (or movement’s) support, nationally.
But the same committed cadre of people can also come together, as happened last weekend, to fire a leader who they feel cannot lead them to victory on the next election day (or perhaps the election after that).
So, if a political entity is a movement without paid-up members in good standing, what would be the criteria for someone to qualify to attend a national political convention as a delegate?
On the face of it, being a non-dues-paying member of a political movement bears little resemblance to being a paid-up member in good standing, duly noted on regional and national lists, of a political party.
The idea seems quaintly amorphous, without edges or boundaries, constantly in motion.
Perhaps that is the ideal of the Liberal theorists who are suggesting such a major change.
But the idea of a “Liberal Movement of Canada” is a risky one, not least because the notion could be seen by Canadians as somewhat weakening the brand.
In fact, there is real risk that even discussing changing the Liberal brand from a national party to a national movement can have that effect.
Party strategists, in charge of a phenomenally popular enterprise just now (in a realm where popularity history has taught us can turn on a political misstep), must weigh carefully both the pros and cons of this radical departure from a practice that has served our parliamentary system well in the past.
If seeking to imbue Liberals with a “cool factor” and to appeal to young voters in this way is an anticipated outcome of this kind of change, party strategists need to remember that cool friends are transitory and it would be difficult and downright embarrassing to decide further down the road that to moving back to party status was the next neat thing to do.
