Growing together – passionately but politely
Let’s kick-off a series of posts by acknowledging the elephant in the Green party’s kitchen – it has factions. And boy does it have factions – party militants who too often revel in taking to cyberspace to toss cyber mud at other activists.
Sometimes it’s about policy, other times it’s about governance. But all too often these debates become laden with personal attacks. This has to stop. Really.
Dissing fellow party members won’t coalesce those same members around a common vision or a common struggle for a better party or a better Canada. And none of the aforementioned Green party factions are innocent in this regard. Repeat none. No one gets off scot free.
While it’s a credit to the party that members are passionate – after all political parties should be passionate – some members can be a little too willing to make a point simply for the sake of making a point rather than pulling party members – and ultimately Canadians – together in common purpose.
Welcome to the party’s first hurdle: developing the internal and external forums necessary to nurture and channel the positive expression of its members’ passion so that the party as a whole can focus on things political parties are supposed to do.
So like any effective organization, the party need rules and the first must be: don’t diss fellow members with personal slights. In private or in public. Loudly or in hushed tones. Period. It matters not whether you’re the leader or a member of an EDA.
And trust me – from experience – sometimes it’s a hard one to follow. When broken, it’s best to suck it up with a genuine apology.
Ultimately, dissing says far more about the disser than the disee. But in the short term – whether a direct hit or purposeful foul ball – dissing breeds resentment, distrust and division, three conditions that generally don’t give rise to political success.
Someone somewhere put ‘constructive’ in front of ‘criticism’ for a reason. Members with a beef should express their POV with class, not wedges to drive them apart.
If you can’t – or wouldn’t – say something to someone’s face then don’t publish it on the Internet. If it ain’t true, don’t hit send, post or submit. Our mothers taught us: “If you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all.” They also taught us that greens are good (for you).
Whether it’s a floor debate, a private email or a public blog, aspire to the highest ideals of oratory and prose and if it ain’t permissible in Parliament, don’t say it, don’t write it – which isn’t to say members shouldn’t use cyberspace to debate policies or party decisions; it’s in the ‘how’ it’s debated that matters.
As Jim Croce wrote “you don’t tug on Superman’s cape and you don’t spit into the wind.”
If the Green Party is about doing politics differently, don’t diss political opponents either. There was a time not too long ago when negative ads were alien to Canadian politics. Canadians came out to vote because they had something to vote for. It’s hypocritical to talk about doing politics differently while simultaneously pouring water into the mud mix.
So fight the good fight. Be passionate about the issues to channel the party’s determination to change the political playing field in Canada. But do it with respect. It will only make the party stronger and more credible with Canadians.
And always remember: sometimes your opinion carries the day, sometimes it doesn’t. Welcome to democracy.
Dermod Travis is former Director of Communications for the Green Party of Canada and organized the Green Party's 2006 National Convention
Comments
Too right there are no adequate forums
Thanks Dermod,
I no doubt have been guilty of the occasional intemporate written word. You've got me wondering if incompetent was too nasty a characterisation to use in a public blog. On balance I think it was ok in that case, because it would take a paragraph or two to say the same thing politely, and the point might not be made then.
btw: I laughed when I saw your' byline above. " By DERMOD TRAVIS – commnications consultant" I don't think you comnicated exactly what you wanted there :)
Also, as I guess you noticed, allowing comments is a good way to flesh out your thoughts, and engage your readers. I'd suggest some form of registration though, or else much intemporate language will be appearing anonymously here.
Bluegreenblogger
Oh, comments are moderated..
Not such a good idea. Let people comment real-time, and rip down the intemporate comments later. That is, unless you don't really want realtime discussions about your ideas and your guest bloggers articles.
Bluegreenblogger
definitely
I did make this point lately when I saw all the bickering and name calling and what-not that's been going on. I don't need that in my life. We don't. So let's agree to disagree... politely.
There are internal control and governance issues in the GPC. Let's save our energy to solve them and cut the yelling.
PS I suggest you fix the typo (commnications).
Doing politics differently
A timely reminder that it cost nothing to be polite and that personal attacks say more about the attacker than the one attacked. Well said.
Democracy requires dialog, please join us at http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/
civility
I couldn't agree more. Righteous, or misplaced, scoring points as is so often part of the dialogue of a party that hopes to change the tenor of our political discourse puts a lie to our promise of a new way forward.
To live green we must talk green.
be well
ralph benmergui
"communications" typo fixed
Sorry Dermod, that was our mistake.
The necessity of a complaints mechanism
One of the Green Party's great failings is to have a virtually ineffective Ombuds and Appeals Committee for dealing with unruly and ungovernable members. A political party aspiring to be treated seriously must have such a mechanism.
Back in January 2005 I made a very focused, thoroughly documented complaint about three members in Manitoba to the Ombuds and Appeals Committee. I also provided a copy to each of the federal council members at the time to ensure that the complaint would be acted upon.
Well, that was wishful thinking. Nothing was ever done. The three members in question were able to continue on their sabotage of the provincial division and were never held to account for their actions. I received an apology for the lack of action from the Ombuds and Appeals Committee in its report to the 2006 GPC convention.
(I also submitted a parallel complaint to the Green Party of Manitoba, with the same disposition.)
My point is that, if the party doesn't want disputes to go public, it should have an effective internal complaints mechanism. But it doesn't.
Doing nothing about complaints has the appeal of not having to dish out any punishment, but it is not without cost. Some good people just leave. Sometime lots of good people leave at the same time.
Markus Buchart
Winnipeg, Manitoba
(Not a Green Party member)
Dermod responds
OK, very belatedly, but...
To bluegreenblogger, is incompetent too nasty?
It depends whether it was directed at a person or a decision; if the former, maybe, and if the latter probably not – if you can justify the incompetency of the decision and not the individual making it.
One of the significant losses of the party following August 2006 was the wholesale loss of its institutional memory. Two relevant learning curves from the experienced gained between 2004 and 2006: always, always do open hires and make sure that the person holding the post is qualified for the tasks or train them to meet expectations.
We had a great person during this period who was clearly in the wrong position. This fact wasn't a reflection on the individual concerned, but the chieftans of the party of which I was one. We screwed up. And when I get round to writing my book on the GPC, I'll go into more detail.
Comments in real time? I'm recommending a post today for this site that touches tangentially on this subject.
And I can assure you that I've been called far worse in my time than a "commications consultant". :)
Post new comment