One of the overlooked realities of this leadership campaign is the impact the process and outcome will have on the future of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta itself. I wonder about the role of political parties in general and the resistance of people to join them. Do political parties have a future?
In the old days – I am old enough to have “old days” – political parties were individuals who came together in constituencies to use their collective power to create, influence, criticize, comment, propose and promote public policy ideas as part of the common good.
They recruited candidates, stuffed envelopes, delivered brochures and made phone calls – sometimes until their ears bled. The really big purposes of political parties were to run and win elections and to occasionally pick new party leaders…or dump old ones as the case may be.
Some of that still happens today but it is not grassroots and local anymore. It is centralized by consultants and marketing machine politics. People are more removed from the political process and the public policy development dynamics too. Campaigns have changed and so have political parties, and not necessarily for the better.
I think there is a fundamental role for political parties but they have to take back the power and purpose of grassroots democracy away for the leadership and the “handlers” of those party leaders.
Transparency, accountability, openness are all buzzwords in the politics of the day because of the miscreants and the ethically challenged political players of the past. People are turning off voting and turning away from democratic institutions like political parties as a result. Democracy is a fragile concept that depends on informed citizens who participate.
Engagement has to be meaningful before people will take the time to become involved. We need to change the culture where politicians are seen as “powerful” and we need to elect people more personally motivated by an authentic sense of being a servant leader and stewards of the public good. We need wiser, smarter and better people in elected office but that starts with citizens demanding it and doing something about it.
To get that we need more meaningful opportunity for ordinary citizens to see acts of citizenship as a duty but also a right that they respect and as a privilege they value in a free and democratic society.
With new technology and communications techniques we have lots of content and context on the candidate’s websites. But with no time to attend or serious opportunities to see and hear the candidates we don’t get to know about the character and capabilities of the candidates.
There are going to be thousands of “new PC members” who are into the fray to influence the leadership selection outcome mostly for reasons of self interest – which is just fine by me. I hope some are prepared to stay in the party past the second ballot and to keep the “winner” accountable as active citizens who are meaningfully engaged in democracy. Who knows – we may even help make the winner into a leader too.
Let me guess - it is the liberals within the party that can best keep the party together.
ReplyDeleteNope it is not about labels it is about the kinds of people who can respect diversity, value inclusiveness, have open minds, appreciate a variety of perspectves, who are prepared to really listen, who are not ideologically hide-bound and believe there is a positive but limited role for government.
ReplyDeleteIf it is about labels though, it will be the PROGRESSIVE Conservatives not republican-lite types who can revitalize the party.
Yeah, value inclusiveness AS LONG AS they are consistent with YOUR values. What a joke.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has their own particular ideology. Stating you are the objective holder of what is right and wrong is disturbing.
Such a hypocrite.
Dr. Calberta...I have been doing policy consulting since January 1, 2000 and previously practiced law since 1975.
ReplyDeleteThe posting may appear odd and your point may be well taken. That is for others to judge. If yo go to our company site at www.cambridgestrategies.com you will see the kind of work we have done as part of making such a judgement.
For the record though I did serve as a volunteer on on the PC Party Policy Committee helping to organized the annual Policy Conferences. I did that for a decade up to 2000 but felt ir best to retire from that position since I was now doing professional policy consulting.
I do not think I said consultants adn handlers have ruined the party. I just noted that political campaigning has become more professional and sophisticated and as a result more centralized. That can create a distance from regular party members. That is the modern reality that political parties and the members have to adapt to. My preference would be to have the parties back in the control of the memebership. Nobody has ruined political parties. The dynamic have changed and we have to be sure citizens stay involved. That is all.
I'm guessing you're against a registry for companies that lobby the government.
ReplyDeleteHopefully you'll get a lucrative contract if Hancock wins. I was wondering why you weren't bashing Dinning - now I know.
Nope - I am totally in favour of a lobbyist registry and have been supporting the idea since Dr. Tupper recommended it in a review years ago. It is something that is way over due.
ReplyDeleteIt has to have strict and enforced conflict of interest rules in it equivalent to what lawyers have as well.
Of course, if Hancock won, you wouldn't get any more work for your company from the AB government, would you? Or would there be some type of exception?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're actually suggesting that the lobbyist registry would have the "equivalent" rules of the professional code. That would simply be impossible.