ERS 490: Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of
Canada
Presented to: Prof. Bob Gibson
By: Jeff Harti
4B Environment and Resource Studies
University of Waterloo
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction to the General Problem Area ................................................................. 3
2.0 Introduction to GPC Terms ....................................................................................... 5
3.0 Introduction to the general approach taken ................................................................ 7
3.1 Literature Review................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Evaluation of GPC Platform Policy Development Process..................................... 8
3.2.1 Evaluative Criteria and how they will be used................................................. 8
3.3 Participant Feed-back ............................................................................................ 9
3.3.1 Way in which Participant Feed-back was Obtained......................................... 9
3.3.2 Way in which Participant Feed-back was used in Report .............................. 10
4.0 Background............................................................................................................. 10
4.1 Green Party of Canada......................................................................................... 10
4.2 Green Party of Canada: Platform 2005 Policy Development Process ................... 11
4.3 Other Canadian Federal Party Policy Development ............................................. 17
5.0 Observations ........................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Personal Observations on the Process .................................................................. 29
5.2 Other Participant Observations on the Process..................................................... 32
6.0 Process Limitations/Development Issues ................................................................. 35
7.0 Results .................................................................................................................... 37
7.1 Evaluation of the Process using the Established Evaluative Criteria..................... 37
8.0 Conclusions/Project Limitations.............................................................................. 39
9.0 Next Steps............................................................................................................... 40
References: ................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A – Participant Observations......................................................................... 43
Appendix B – guidelines for plank leaders .................................................................... 46
2
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
General Problem Area:
An examination of the Green Party of Canada’s attempt to create a more participatory
approach to federal party platform policy development in Canada.
1.0 Introduction to the General Problem Area
There is something wrong with the state of democracy in Canada today. Political
party involvement is in decline and more than ever it seems that Canadians feel
disconnected from the politicians who are elected to represent them and detached from
the basic exercise of democracy in this country.
For instance, voter turnout for federal elections had averaged 75 percent since
World War Two, with this rate of participation being maintained through 1988. After
1988, however, voter turnout began to decline with percentage of registered Canadians
who voted in the 1993 federal election falling to 70 percent. This pattern of decline
continued with only 67 percent voter turnout in 1997, followed by the historic low of
61.2 percent reached in the federal election of 2000. This pattern of decline did slow
considerably in 2004 but the voter turnout did still decline to 60.5 percent (Pammett and
LeDuc, 2004 p338).
Helping to explain this decline are the public perceptions of the politicians and
political institutions involved in federal politics. From the data obtained from an
Elections Canada survey in 2002, Pammet and LeDuc (2004 p342) found that “[t]here is
a widespread perception that politicians are untrustworthy, selfish, unaccountable, lack
credibility, are insincere, etc”. This lack of trust fosters a spirit of apathy towards the
political process which is further fuelled by the perception that “political participation is
meaningless,” due to the situation in many areas of the country where certain parties,
3
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
which may have been considered meaningful choices, are not seen as having a realistic
chance of achieving parliamentary representation (Pammett and Le Duc, 2004 p339).
It follows from this then that one possible way of reversing this long-term decline
in voter turnout is to increase the opportunities for Canadians to participate meaningfully
in the political process. One obvious way of doing this would be through a process of
electoral reform which would change the current first-past-the-post voting system in
Canada. This option has been talked about federally but it does not appear that the current
Liberal minority government is willing to move forward on this issue in any meaningful
way and as such, another way for Canadians to have meaningful participation in the
political process is necessary.
Another option would be increased participation at the federal political party level
and specifically increased involvement by Canadians in party policy development
process. This paper examines this option by looking at the platform policy development
process employed by the Green Party of Canada (GPC). This process will be examined
because it seems to represent a change from the way that Canadian federal parties have
developed policy in the past, a move towards a more participatory form of policy-making
which could serve as a model for other parties in the future at the federal or provincial
level, in Canada and beyond.
Specifically, the examination of this process will address certain key
questions/issues, the key ones of which are listed below:
•
How do other federal parties in Canada develop their policies?
•
Does the way in which the GPC develops its policies differ in any fundamental
way from that of other federal parties in Canada?
4
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
•
Does the process represent a more participatory approach to policy development?
•
How do participants in the GPC platform policy development process view this
process?
•
Is this process desirable in terms of further democratization of the way in which
policy is developed by federal parties in Canada?
•
Is this process a desirable way for the GPC to develop its policy, is it generally
beneficial for the party?
2.0 Introduction to GPC Terms
Platform 2005:
The official name for the GPCs platform policy development process for 2005. The main
goal of this process is to create the GPCs election platform for the next general election.
The Living Platform:
“The Living Platform is a public forum where people can discuss Green Party of Canada
(GPC) policies, contribute to the research and development of the GPC platform, and
explore public policy issues” (GPC, 2005)
It is the official policy development website used during the Platform 2005 process (see
section 4.2 for more technical details).
Subcommittees:
Are issue-specific, policy development committees of varying size, which are composed
of participants in the Platform 2005 process.
Subcommittee Chair:
5
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
A volunteer participant in the process selected to co-ordinate the plank development
efforts of a specific subcommittee. Originally they were selected GPC staff at the
beginning of this process but current decisions on chairships are made by the committee
of the subcommittee chairs and the platform co-chairs.
Plank Leader:
A subcommittee member who is assigned by the subcommittee chair to lead the
development of a specific policy plank. Sometimes individuals create planks and become
de facto plank leaders; there is no strict need for assignation unless multiple volunteers
desire the position.
The Assembly:
Is a group composed of the members of all of the various subcommittees. Its purpose is to
vote on planks brought forward by the subcommittees and it is hosted on a Yahoo!
Groups listserve (see section 4.2).
Platform Co-Chairs:
Are three process participants elected by the Assembly to oversee the process. There is
one co-chair for each of the three areas: social perspective, economic perspective, and
ecological perspective. The individual in each area is supposed to have significant
experience in that area. Their specific role as taken from the Living Platform website is
described below:
The platform co-chairs manage the implementation of the planks that are approved by the
assembly in the final stages of development of the platform.
•
•
•
To ensure a balanced and core Green view of ecological, economic, social and
democratic concerns throughout the platform.
To help the platform team come up with a preamble, a green vision for Canada
that will set the tone for the platform.
To manage the overall integrity, scope and completeness of the platform 2005.
6
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
•
•
•
Jeff Harti
To manage content, not process nor resources.
To help the plank leaders and category chairs to avoid gaps in planks, to ensure
consistency with Green Party Policy, to ensure consistency throughout the
document.
To set overall platform strategy, including the platform's role in the election
strategy, the target audiences, the general tone, the scope of planks.
3.0 Introduction to the general approach taken
3.1 Literature Review
For this project literature survey was used to examine the state of democracy in
Canada, especially the apparent democratic deficit and growing voter apathy and sense of
dissatisfaction towards the political process at the federal level in Canada as evidenced by
the steady decline in voter turnout in general elections over the last few decades. This
information provided necessary context for the discussion of option for to increase public
involvement in federal politics and specifically the need for innovations such as the
GPC’s attempt at creating a more participatory form of policy development process.
A more detailed literature survey was also used to create a more complete picture
of the way in which policy is developed by other political parties at the federal level in
Canada. This understanding was required to create a baseline against which the relative
participatory nature of the GPC’s policy development approach could be tested. This
literature search also yielded general information about the way in which Canadian
political parties at the federal level have developed their policies historically, such the
differences in the approaches of parties in government and those in opposition.
Further literature searches could be utilized to determine the way in which
political parties in other federal democracies develop election platform and general
policy, with other Green Parties around the world being possible sources for useful
7
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
information. For the purposes of this project, the scope was restricted to Canada in hopes
of creating a more specific national picture of platform development in this country
without utilizing outside examples.
3.2 Evaluation of GPC Platform Policy Development Process
3.2.1 Evaluative Criteria and how they will be used
For this report, two sets of evaluative criteria were developed. The first set was
developed to evaluate whether this process is a desirable way for the GPC to develop its
policy, whether it is generally beneficial to the party. The second set of criteria was
developed to be used in evaluating if this process is desirable in terms of further
democratization of the way in which policy is developed by federal parties in Canada.
The two sets of evaluative criteria are presented below in questions:
1)
Is this process a desirable way for the GPC to develop its policy, is it generally
beneficial for the party?
a) Is this process an effective means of policy development and platform policy
development specifically?
b) Does this process contribute to raising the profile of the party in a positive way?
c) Does this process bring more people into the party?
d) Does this process represent an efficient use of party resources in terms of its
benefits (if any) to the party?
2)
Is this process desirable in terms of further democratization of the way in which
policy is developed by federal parties in Canada?
a) How user-friendly is the process, what barriers to participation exist?
8
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
b) Who gets to participate in the process, to what degree and through which means?
c) Is input from participants in this process used and does it influence actual policy?
The use of these evaluative criteria provides the analytical basis for the
conclusions and recommendations made at the end of the report. The conclusions section
of this report will seek to provide answers to these questions, while the next steps section
will expand on these conclusions.
3.3 Participant Feed-back
To properly assess the policy development approach employed by the GPC in
terms of its desirability to the GPC itself as an effective approach and whether it is in fact
participatory in nature, feed-back from those involved in the process had to be obtained,
including the first-hand observations of this report’s author.
3.3.1 Way in which Participant Feed-back was Obtained
This feed-back was obtained from two different sources but both sources were
electronic so there was no need to conduct personal interviews with participants as might
otherwise have been required if sufficient amounts of information had not been available
electronically. That being said, in future, once this process is further advanced and the
initial policy development cycle resulting in the creation of the 2005 platform has been
completed, personal interviews with a representative sample of those who participated in
this process would be informative.
The two sources of participant feed-back on this process were comments posted
on the GPC Assembly listserve regarding the GPC Living Platform process and the
electronic tools such as the Wiki, as well as e-mail from update e-mails on the process
9
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
from Michael Pilling, the ex-GPC staffer who was co-ordinating the Living Platform
process. These e-mails contained a sample of the comments on the process from both
GPC members and others who have participated in or observed the process.
3.3.2 Way in which Participant Feed-back was used in Report
The information obtained through the means described in the previous section
was used without direct written consent of the authors of the comments because this
information were either publicly posted on a Yahoo! Groups listserve and thus available
for shared use or received by way of e-mail from Michael Pilling. The names of those
making the comments were none the less removed in this report for the sake of privacy.
This feed-back will be analyzed in section 4.2, while all of the comments that were
obtained are listed in Appendix A of this report.
4.0 Background
4.1 Green Party of Canada
The Green Party of Canada was founded in 1983, after a conference at Carleton
University in Ottawa. The GPC ran 52 candidates in the subsequent general election of
1984 (GPC, 2005). Since then, the GPC has grown as an organization, with its
membership increasing, along with its showing at the polls. In the last federal election
held in 2004, the GPC ran a full slate of candidates and received 4.3% (580,816) of the
popular vote, guaranteeing themselves federal funding in the amount of $1.75 per vote
annually, an amount equalling $1,016,428 per year (Harada, 2004 p175-9).
10
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
4.2 Green Party of Canada: Platform 2005 Policy Development Process
A platform (or election platform) is a document which is generally created by a
political party in advance of an election call. Its purpose is to provide an outline of party
policy for would-be voters and it generally includes promises of future action which will
be initiated if the party gets voted into government. The way in which a platform is
developed depends on the available resources and principles of the party developing it.
The Green Party of Canada is a fairly new party on the Canadian political scene
and as such it does not possess the large institutional base of the other major Canadian
federal parties. Specifically, it lacks similar financial resources and has a much smaller
membership to draw on for support. This comparative disadvantage in terms of resources,
coupled with the fact that the GPC styles itself as a party that is member-driven, inclusive
and committed to reforming the democratic process in Canada, has led them to
experiment with a seemingly novel method of policy development while creating their
2005 platform. This method involves a volunteer-driven platform policy development
process that is open to all members of the GPC and allows for non-members to have their
comments and concerns taken into account. A key element of this process is the use of
the internet and computer software tools to allow for online collaboration, creating virtual
policy development teams or subcommittees that bring GPC members from all across
Canada together to develop specific planks of the 2005 GPC platform.
Before the specifics of the platform policy development process itself can be
discussed, the technology that enables this process to occur must be examined in greater
detail. The key tool in this process is the Living Platform website. The Living Platform is
11
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
website that utilizes TikiWiki software to create an interactive environment where users
can create pages, edit previously created pages, comment on these pages and view the
previous iterations that these pages have gone through. In essence it creates a decentralized, virtual hub where policy discussion can take place on an ongoing basis. In
the more technical terms, TikiWiki “is a powerful open-source Content Management
System (CMS) and Groupware that can be used to create all sorts of Web Applications,
Sites, Portals, Intranets and Extranets. TikiWiki also works great as a web-based
collaboration tool” (TikiWiki, 2005).
In plain language, this software is free and open to the public; it incorporates a
system which organizes and facilitates the collaborative creation of digital content known
as a CMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system), with such a class
of software also being referred to as groupware. Specifically, groupware is defined as
application software “that integrates work on a single project by several concurrent users
at separated workstations” (Wikipedia, 2005).
The other key technological tool being utilized as a part of this process is the
Yahoo! Groups technology. Yahoo! Groups is a free service from Yahoo! which provides
groups with a website where they can post messages, upload files, and even chat online.
These groups are used by the GPC as interactive listserves where members of the various
subcommittees can discuss policy and develop their ideas. All of the messages posted to
the group’s site are archived for easy retrieval and a list of the group members and their
contact information is maintained allowing for easier communication between group
members. Another important feature of these groups is that they allow for the creation of
polls. These polls are used as the primary mechanism for voting on proposed policy
12
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
planks. This voting takes place on a special group site entitled GPC-Assembly. The
voting and approval process will be discussed in more detail in the next section.
Returning to the Living Platform itself, according to the Living Platform Home
Page (http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php), “The Living Platform is a public forum
where people can discuss Green Party of Canada (GPC) policies, contribute to the
research and development of the GPC platform, and explore public policy issues”. The
public nature of this tool is re-enforced by the disclaimer posted below the welcome
message which reads: “Many pages in the Living Platform are open to the public for
commenting and/or editing. As such, the content and comments in the Living Platform
are not necessarily the views of the Green Party or any of its members” and directs users
to the site’s terms of use page.
The ways in which users of this site are allowed to participate in the policy
development process differ depending on whether they are just visitors to the site,
registered users or GPC members. Visitors are allowed to browse all of the pages in the
Living Platform and post their comments. Registered users are able to edit the various
pages, create their own pages or proposals and join one of the subcommittees. Finally,
members of the GPC are allowed to do all of the above but they are also allowed to vote
on the plank proposals that are brought to the assembly.
Below is an account of how the plank development process actually functions
based on the first-hand participant observation and participation.
Primary development:
This is the stage at which a plank is initially conceived or an existing plank is
modified by one or more of the members of the subcommittee that deals with that
13
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
specific subject area. It is the job of the subcommittee chair to appoint a plank leader for
each specific plank though in practice advocates generally emerge for particular issues
and often ideas for planks are forwarded by individuals who then become the plank
leaders. If a plank leader cannot be found, the subcommittee chair assumes a stewardship
role for the plank as it is ultimately his or her responsibility to prepare the plank for
submission to the Assembly.
Before the plank is submitted to the Assembly however, it is discussed within the
subcommittee and improvements and modifications are suggested to the plank
author/leader or subcommittee members can simply edit the plank’s page. If
disagreements arise, the designated plank leader is usually afforded the final edit before
the plank is submitted to the assembly. The subcommittee chair might would also help to
mediate any disputed and he or she may edit the plank before it is sent to the Assembly to
make sure that it does not contravene approved party policy, as well as to ensure proper
formatting and length (as a summary is posted with the poll with a link to the full plank’s
page).
More recently, draft planks have also been posted to the Assembly for a comment
period before the polls are opened on them. This allows for changes to be made before
voting begins and ensures that more planks are approved by the Assembly. Once the poll
is created (voting period begins), the page which houses the draft plank is locked by one
of the platform co-chairs so as to ensure that no modifications to the plank occur during
the duration of the voting period.
14
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
The poll options are the same for every poll and they range are:
-
Approved, largely as is
-
On target, but needs work
-
Rejected, fundamental flaws
For a plank to be approved and pass into the secondary stage of development, the
minimum requirement is for two-thirds of the votes to either be “approved” or “on
target”. When the vote is quite close and many of the votes are for on target, the plank is
often returned to the subcommittee so that the plank leader can incorporate changes and
ideas suggested by members of the Assembly into the plank. The process is generally the
same as if a plank fails to achieve the necessary level of approval, though in this
eventuality the plank leader could decide to resign and the subcommittee chair would
then assign a new plank leader. Generally, though, the plank is just returned to the plank
author/leader to be re-worked to incorporate the comments received.
The secondary stage of development is less defined. At the time that this report
was written the Assembly was still voting on planks in their primary stage of
development. Those which had already received primary approval were set aside so that
the development of additional planks could be concentrated on. The process for
secondary development of a plank, as it is currently laid-out on the GPC Living Platform
website, is briefly explained below.
Secondary Development –
“Beginning only after the Assembly has approved the plank the secondary development
of the plank is shared between the subcommittee, the plank leader and supporting staff. In
this phase the plank is thoroughly researched, quality tested, implemented into the Green
15
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
Federal Budget, and provided with backgrounders and messaging to candidates” (GPC,
2004).
These steps are, however, only an initial guideline and the way in which
secondary development is undertaken will differ depending on the plank itself and those
involved in the process.
As this process is constantly evolving, the official procedural rules governing the
process and guidelines for plank development are subject to change and are modified as
issues arise. That being said, there are several Living Platform pages which provide
useful information on process procedure and guidelines. The first is entitled “How to
draft a plank” (http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page_ref_id=255) and it was the
original pager providing instructions on the process. Though this page provides useful
background information, links to other important pages, as well as “Protocol for creating
and approving a plank”, it was last updated on November 8, 2004 and as such is out of
date in regards to current procedure.
The main procedural change since that time is that plank approval no longer
requires a simple majority or 50% + 1 but a two-thirds approval rate as described earlier
in this section. Beyond this, the page describes a somewhat idealized process in which
timelines and milestones are set for the development of each plank, with volunteers
auditioning for the plank leader position. While some or all of this may occur, it is not the
norm, with the nature of the process being much more ad hoc.
The second page is entitled “guidelines for plank leaders”
(http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=guidelines+for+plank+leaders). It is much
more up-to-date, having been updated on March 1, 2005 and it presents a much more
16
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
detailed look at the mechanics of both primary and secondary plank development (it is
presented in Appendix B). The extensive step-by-step instruction under the primary
development describes the process by which the ideal plank would be arrived at. It is
something to strive for but in reality all of these steps will not (generally) have been
completed by the time a plank reaches the assembly for primary approval. Equally
detailed instructions are presented for secondary development but since this process has
not yet begun in earnest, no comments can be made.
4.3 Other Canadian Federal Party Policy Development
The way in which other federal political parties in Canada develop their policies
and specifically their election platforms obviously varies depending on the party in
question but beyond this, many other factors can affect the way in which they develop
their policies. These factors include the timing of an election call, the individual style of
party’s leader, the constitution of the party, as well as the current electoral fortunes of the
party (i.e. whether they the governing party or are they in opposition). The way in which
each of the major Canadian federal parties develops its policies will now be examined,
with a focus on some of the key factors mentioned above.
The Liberal Party of Canada:
“Our policy development process is a defining feature of our Party and sets us apart from
every other political party in the world. The foundation of the process is that our
grassroots members create and set party policy not only when we are in opposition, but
also when we are in government” (Liberals, 2005a).
This statement is taken from the website of the Liberal Party of Canada’s Policy
Development Committee and it portrays the party as a unique global entity due to the fact
that the policy development process is driven by the grassroots membership even when
17
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
the party is in government. The Liberal’s supposed commitment to a participatory
approach to policy develop is further developed in the following statement which outlines
the latest development in this process: “By taking the policy process on-line for the first
time in our Party’s history, we will be taking a step towards increasing participation still
further” (Liberals, 2005a).
The above statements reinforce the idea that the Liberal’s policy development
process is meant to be an inclusive and participatory one, with the grassroots membership
leading the way in the development of party policy process now with an on-line feature to
facilitate greater participation. It must be mentioned, however, that this policy
development process and the new on-line “extranet” policy discussion forum are only
open to members of the Liberal Party of Canada as this the “Have Your Say” guide to
policy development clearly states: “The Liberal Party of Canada national office has
developed and launched an Extranet site available to Liberal Party members where they
can meet on-line to discuss policy and download current Liberal Party of Canada
material” (Liberal, 2005b).
In light of the fact that the GPC Living Platform allows non-members to
participate in GPC’s online policy development process and that it is readily accessible
from the GPC’s main website, the Liberal’s claims to a uniquely inclusive and
participatory policy development process are cast into doubt. Still, the claim that the
grassroots membership sets party policy both when the party is in opposition and when
the party has been elected to government bears further examination and for this reason,
the way in which the Liberals have developed their party policy in the past will be
examined in the next section.
18
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
One notable past example of how the grassroots members of the Liberal Party
were involved in platform policy development comes from 1961 when the Liberals were
in opposition. As Coutts (2004 p10) describes it, “in 1961 a Liberal convention was
organized to focus exclusively on a set of policy initiatives that would form the platform
and shape the issues in the 1962-63 elections and define the legislative agenda when
Pearson came to power”. The platform that was developed by the grassroots membership
brought Pearson to power and for a time, the party grassroots were allowed to set the
legislative agenda but as Cross (2004 p37) points out, “…once well established in
government, the party reverted to form. Within days of the 1966 national convention,
Pearson repudiated several of the policies adopted [at convention] and in spite of what
the party’s constitution now said he declared that the convention’s resolutions did not
establish party policy making it clear that this open and participatory approach to policy
development was no longer supported by the leadership of the Liberals.
Pearson’s move away from the grassroots membership setting the policy agenda
seemed to set the pattern for policy development within the Liberal party for years to
come. As Coutts (2004 p12) observed, “…Trudeau and his successors, like Lester B.
Pearson before them, essentially ignored the grassroots of the Liberal Party between
elections not involving them until they were needed to support the Liberal’s re-election
efforts. More recently, Prime Minister Paul Martin’s ascendance to power took place at
the Liberal’s 2003 national convention. This convention was very far removed from the
conventions of old that focused largely on policy development and in fact, “[i]ts sole
purpose seemed to be anointing Paul Martin Jr. as party leader and prime minister”
(Coutts, 2004 p10).
19
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
With the leadership question answered, however, at the most recent edition of the
Liberal’s Biennial Convention (held this March in Ottawa) the focus was again turned to
policy matters. The Liberals’ Policy Resolution Handbook describes the process by
which the policy ideas made their way from the membership to the convention floor, with
some ultimately being approved as party policy:
“Early in 2004, Liberals across Canada began to meet over kitchen tables and in
committee rooms, to discuss policy ideas and to develop resolutions that would be
forwarded to the general meeting of the membership at the Biennial Convention in
March, 2005. These resolutions were submitted by the ridings to regional meetings of the
provinces, territories and to the four Commissions of the Liberal Party of Canada in early
winter. Each Provincial and Territorial Association (PTA), the National Women’s Liberal
Commission, the Young Liberals of Canada, the Senior Liberals Commission and the
Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission, the National Liberal Caucus and the Standing
Committee on Policy Development were each asked to submit five resolutions of which
one was identified as a priority resolution that would go directly for debate to the plenary
floor” (Liberals, 2005c).
Filtering the policy resolutions of the membership through the respective regional
bodies and commissions of the party to ensure that a manageable number of resolutions
and a few key priority resolutions reached the convention floor does seem to make
practical sense with a convention of this size. Also, the description of the format of the
convention provided on the Liberal’s web site suggests that attempts were made to assure
that the convention delegates had input into which other resolutions (besides the priority
resolutions discussed above) would make it to the ultimate policy plenary:
“The Biennial Convention will include policy workshops, policy plenaries and addresses
in the form of policy perspectives. At each workshop, Party members will debate and
discuss the policy resolutions that were submitted to the Convention. At the conclusion of
the workshop, they will vote to identify one as a priority to be considered at the plenary.
The policy plenaries include resolutions that were prioritized by the various bodies of the
Party and those resolutions that were prioritized by the workshops. Each will be
presented by its sponsor, each is offered for debate and each will be voted upon by the
membership to determine if it will become Party policy” (Liberals, 2005c).
20
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
That being said, the Liberals now find themselves in the precarious position of
trying to maintain the integrity of a minority government, while preparing for an election
which may come as early as this year. And it remains to be seen whether the resolutions
that were adopted at the recent convention make their way into the election platform and
which ones of these will actually be implemented either by the current government or
later on if the Liberals are able to win re-election.
Conservative Party of Canada:
The Conservative Party of Canada is the newest party on the Canadian federal
scene but it has deep historical connections to the now defunct Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada, which was the only other party besides the Liberals to have ever
governed Canada. The new Conservatives also have deep connections with the former
Canadian Alliance Party of Canada, a descendant of the Reform Party of Canada, which
was still seen by many as a western populist party which formed as a result of the
apparent sense of alienation felt by many in Western Canada.
Trying to reconcile the two distinctly different political ideologues of the more
centre of the road Progressive Conservatives and the decidedly right-of-centre
Alliance/Reformers who make-up of the political base of this new party posed a problem
for the Conservatives when trying to develop their platform policies for the 2004 general
election. They were left having to answer the question of “how to build a platform that
would simultaneously present Ontario and Atlantic voters with a moderate, competent
image while not alienating its western support base” (Ellis and Woolstencroft, 2004 p89).
This is not a new situation, however, as the Conservative side of the political spectrum in
21
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
Canada has historically had problems trying to “…present voters with a platform
cohesive enough to span diverse regional and ideological divisions between constituent
elements of the centre-right opposition” (Ellis and Woolstencroft, 2004 p89).
When it came to developing their election platform for the 2004 general election,
it was not the historical problems mentioned above but the tight timelines that dictated
the way in which the Conservatives developed their platform policies. As Ellis and
Woolstencroft (2004 p89) noted, since they lacked the time for a full policy convention
they “…relied on [senior policy advisor Ken] Boessenkool to work with senior
strategists, most notably Peter Mackay, to construct the policy platform”. This is in no
way a participatory approach to platform policy development but the Conservatives
really had little choice in the matter. This policy platform was built on “the nineteen
‘founding principles’ [of the party] in the Agreement in Principle and the Interim
Council’s ‘areas of agreement’…” (Ellis and Woolstencroft, 2004 p89). This platform
then finalized “after the presentations by the policy group to the parliamentary caucus
and approval from Harper produced a forty-seven-page document under the slogan
‘Demanding Better’”.
It is hard to tell the way in which the Conservatives develop their platform
policies with the party having been in existence for only one election campaign and with
their being forced to develop their platform for that campaign in the quick manner
described above but their recent policy convention did provide some insight. This
convention was held in Montreal and attended by close to 3,000 party member delegates.
According to the Conservatives website (Conservatives, 2005a), the delegates came from
22
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
all across Canada and they “voted on fresh new policies that will form our new Policy
Statement, and they approved the Party’s new Constitution”.
A lot depends on whether this new constitution (which was not yet available on
the Party’s website at the time of writing this report) draws from that of the old
Reform/Canadian Alliance parties, in which “policy positions [were] determined by the
members in convention, and the parliamentary caucus is bound to follow the dictates of
the membership” (Carty, Cross, and Young, 2004. p23).
Generally though, it appears that the Conservative Party of Canada employs a
more traditional approach to policy development than that of the Liberal Party of Canada,
GPC. There seems to be an importance placed on the participation of the membership in
the policy development process, with this input being funneled through the 308 riding
associations across the country and passed on to the federal party establishment. There is,
however, no mention made of this process being taken online or of resources being
available to help people to more effectively participate in this process (Conservatives,
2005b). Neither, for that matter is there any mention of the extent of the substantive
influence on policy positions which the input of the membership has.
Also, as with the Liberals, it seems clear that this process is only open to party
members and specifically those party members that involve themselves with their local
riding association. The information obtained from the official party website provides
some idea of how the policy development process runs but, like the Liberals, it remains to
be seen whether the resolutions that were adopted at the Conservative Party’s first
23
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
policy convention make their way into the election platform and which ones of these will
actually be implemented if and when the Conservatives are elected into office.
Bloc Québécois:
“Le Congrès national est l'instance suprême du Bloc Québécois. Il se tient généralement
tous les deux ans. Il décide des orientations politiques du Bloc Québécois. Le Congrès
national élit les membres du Bureau exécutif national, à l'exception de la Présidente ou du
Président du Parti qui est élu au suffrage universel des membres. Le Congrès national est
la seule instance habilitée à adopter et à modifier les statuts” (Bloc, 2005).
The above statement is presented in the original French due to a lack of an
available English version on the Bloc’s official website. This statement seems shows the
central nature of the biennial national convention (Le congrès national) as the sole forum
for adopting and changing party policy (Le Congrès national est la seule instance
habilitée à adopter et à modifier les statuts), though more information would be needed to
test the accuracy of this official claim. This statement on the importance of the national
convention is not dissimilar to the position of others of the parties described in this
section but it does seem to show a commitment on the part of the Bloc to codify the
important role of the membership in the policy-development process. Unfortunately, no
specific information on the way in which the Bloc develops their platform policies was
available and so only some general observations on the uniqueness of Bloc’s situation
and the opportunities which this provides can be made.
The Bloc is a uniquely regional party in that it only chooses to run candidates in
the province of Quebec and as such it is always in opposition, having excluded itself from
ever governing (except by coalition). This status would allow the Bloc the freedom to
more fully involve its membership in platform policy development without worrying
about having to modify these positions to reflect the views of all Canadians if elected.
24
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
This allows the Bloc the flexibility to cater exclusively to the views of Quebecers and to
develop its policy accordingly, a luxury not shared by any of the other federal parties.
The extent to which the Bloc makes use of its unique circumstance to provide for
a more participatory approach to platform policy development is uncertain but the lack of
specific information relating to policy development and how their platform is crafted
provides little indication that this is so.
New Democratic Party of Canada:
“The convention shall be the supreme governing body of the Party and shall have final
authority in all matters of federal policy, program and constitution” (Cross, 2004 p38).
The above statement taken from the constitution of the New Democratic Party of
Canada (NDP) does show that the party has a certain participatory bent and that the
NDP professes to value intra-party democracy and the participatory involvement of its
membership in the decision-making process. Does this carry over into platform policy
development or is the membership merely involved in voting on resolutions, while not
participating in their development?
The general election of 2004 provides some insight into the way in which the
NDP develop their platform policy. In this instance the work of platform policy
development was delegated to a sub-committee of the NDPs election planning committee
(EPC). The EPC involved over 30 members and key staff and it included, “representation
from every province and territory and was composed of the leader, the party’s federal
officers, and a number of co-opts” (Whitehorn, 2004 p110), among others. The
subcommittee which actually drafted the platform was the “election platform and
25
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
communications committee”. This committee, “drawing on past party conventions’
resolutions and reports, drafted an integrated policy platform intended to maximize the
party’s electoral appeal” (Whitehorn, 2004 p111). A draft of this document was
presented for approval at a meeting of the federal council on the eve of the election call
(Whitehorn, 2004 p111).
Much like the Conservatives’ version, this approach to platform policy
development seems to be quite traditional and not very inclusive or participatory in
nature, though the platform was based in part on past party convention resolutions which
the membership would have approved. Also, the NDP lacked the Conservatives excuse of
having only been in existence for a few scant months before the election was called.
This may seem like rather harsh criticism but the NDP, as a party which has never
governed federally (and really only had a realistic chance of winning enough seats in the
last election to hold the balance of power), should more easily be able to involve their
membership in the policy development. As Cross (2004 p38) noted, for perpetually nongoverning parties like the NDP, “…it is easier for them to cater to the views of their
activists than it is for brokerage parties seeking to govern and maintain large, diverse
coalitions”. Unencumbered by this problem, unlike the Conservatives and Liberals, one
would expect a more non-traditional approach to platform policy development that
provides the membership with more direct involvement.
At the provincial level though, the Ontario NDP provide an example of an
opposition party which developed its platform policies with much input from the
membership. This approach did, however, lead to problems when the NDP, in a
26
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
surprising result, were elected in 1990. Like other opposition parties before it, “Once
elected, the party quickly realizes that that it is now charged with representing the whole
province and not simply the views of its partisan base of social activists and trade union
members. The party moved far away from the policy preferences of its members” (Cross,
2004 p39). Whether this would happen at the federal level, with the party convention
resolutions no longer constituting a large part of the election platform, is debatable but the
performance of the Ontario NDP when it came to using the views of the membership to
form public policy begs the question.
General Comments on Federal Party Policy Development in Canada:
The apparent lack of a real commitment to involving the grassroots party
membership in the policy development process in a meaningful way seems to be
characteristic of parties that are in power or that have had a history of being in power. As
Cross (2004 p35) observes, “The contemporary Liberal and Conservative parties, the
only parties to have governed federally, occasionally hold policy conventions at which
their party members debate and adopt policy positions, but these are in no way binding
on the parliamentary parties”. Another characteristic of these governing parties seems to
be the development of platforms that are, as Cross (2004 p36) noted in reference to the
1992 election platform of the Conservatives under Kim Campbell, “largely devoid of
specific policy planks and written by a few senior aides working for the leader”, a
scenario that is “…characteristic of governing parties”.
27
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
Another troubling trend among federal parties in Canada is their tendency to
change the way they develop their policy depending on which side of the House of
Commons they happen to find themselves. The fact is that “…opposition parties are
often responsive to the policy views of their members only to become substantially less
so upon assuming the reins of government” (Cross, 2004 p34), which either represents
the unfortunate reality of being in government or a real problem with party politics at the
federal level in Canada.
Centrist, brokerage parties such as the Liberals who have a large and
geographically diverse membership base should be able to avoid this problem to a certain
extent as the views of their membership are more likely to closely mirror those of a
majority of Canadians. Still, as Cross (2004 p39) claims, governing parties have used the
rational that, “[p]arty activists are often more extreme in their views than are each
parties’ voters, and certainly more so than the electorate at large”, to deny the
membership a meaning role in policy setting and it is likely that this justification will
continue to be used as many would find validity in it.
Overall, a historical problem with party politics in this country seems to be the
“lack of a significant role for party members in policy development” (Cross, 2004 p33).
This lack of a role for party members is cited as a possible reason for the “sharp decline
in party membership routinely experienced between elections… and the general
dissatisfaction of many partisans with the operations of their own party” (Cross, 2004
p33). This problem is thought to stem from the traditional notion that policy
development is carried out by the parliamentary party caucus, with the membership being
28
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
given little more than an advisory role (Cross, 2004 p34). It seems clear that historically
speaking, Canadian federal parties as they became more powerful and especially when
they are government, they do not provide their membership with meaningful
opportunities to participate either platform or public policy development.
After examining the policy development processes of the other major federal
political parties in Canada, it seems that the GPC Living Platform represents a more
participatory approach to policy development (in terms of the accessible and
inclusiveness nature of the process) and a deviation from the historical pattern outlined
above. It also seems to represent a technical modernization of policy development
process, in particular because it makes greater use of information technology such as the
internet and web-based software tools to facilitate online collaboration. It is likely that the
use of such tools will become more widespread in the future as other political parties look
for new and innovative ways to interact with their memberships and possible even for the
ongoing development of policy to be used in election platform development and to define
and help refine party stances in between elections. The validity of these preliminary
conclusions will be discussed in the next section of this report.
5.0 Observations
5.1 Personal Observations on the Process
I have been involved in the GPCs Platform 2005 process since late September of
last year. My role in this process is subcommittee chair for the Minerals and Energy
subcommittee and like all of the other participants, I am a volunteer. My role as
subcommittee chair involves the coordination of the policy-making activities of the
29
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
subcommittee membership (which was comprised of 19 members at the time this was
written), acting as a spokesperson for the subcommittee members during meetings of the
subcommittee chairs and occasional process committee meetings and generally providing
assistance and motivation to the subcommittee members as needed. By nature of my
serving in this capacity my experience with the process was different in certain ways
from that of many of the other participants but I share a lot of the same feelings expressed
in the participant feed-back.
For instance, I have felt at times confused, frustrated, excited, energized and
overwhelmed by this process but when I think about this process and my involvement in
it for all these months I am happy that I have been involved and I look forward to
continuing to participate in this process as it grows and evolves. I also feel protective of
this process as one of its collective “owners” having claimed my stake through sweat
equity and it feels to me like those involved in this process have developed or are
developing into a virtual network or community of sorts.
That is not to say that there are no problems. It seems that this almost instinctive
protectionism of our shared creation and each individual’s protection of his/her own
personal contribution have led to disagreements over actions perceived to be arbitrary,
aspersions cast about the motivation and character of individuals and general feelings of
victimization or marginalization in some instances. Some of these problems will be
discussed in the section on “Process Limitations/Development Issues” below but
generally to me the problems stem from a new and novel process trying to establish itself
within an existing party structure, some institutional rigidity and resistance to change, as
30
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
well as a lack of proper communication between the upper-level party officials, staff and
the process participants.
On balance though, the positives of this process have far outweighed the
negatives, with one main positive being the way in which this process has empowered
party members and even non-members by giving them a direct and meaningful means to
participate in policy development. This possibility for real input attracted me to this
process, as I was tired with the way that politics has been practised in this country and the
lack of opportunities to participate in the political process beyond casting my vote every
four years or so. It seemed that the GPC was trying to change this status quo and bring
politics within the reach of the grassroots again and indeed I still feel that way (I would
not still be involved otherwise).
That being said, what needs to happen for this process to succeed over the longterm and achieve its potential is for many more people to become active participants in
the process. As with most groups, there is an active core of members who move the
process along and do a great deal of the work. If this core group of volunteers is too
small, people start getting over-loaded, burnt-out and the process suffers. If there were
100 active members in this process the full benefits of the wiki could be realized and
some amazing things could be accomplished. I only hope that we are able to achieve this
goal in the not so distant future.
At the writing of this report, there were 125 members of the Assembly with the
number of people voting on planks varying from 19 to 60, depending on the plank.
Determining the active core group of members is difficult as it varies in size over time
and depends on the definition of “active member” that is employed but for the purposes
31
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
of this report, this group has been estimated at 40-50 members who regularly contribute
to the process and who have done so throughout this process, though the numbers
contributing at any one point vary greatly.
Another question that needs to be answered is how well this process would
function if there were significantly more participants involved? This is a question that the
GPC must seriously consider if the intention to grow this process to the extent that it
would include 500 or 1000 participants. This seems to me to be a desirable objective but
to ensure the effectiveness of the process when its reaches that size, the GPC must
immediately invest in one full-time staffer to provide assistance and guidance to those
involved and ensure that the process is on track. In the future, as participation in this
process grew, one or two additional staff would likely be required to perform these duties
as the complexity of the process would increase along with the number of participants.
The GPC must also ensure that the volunteers filling the leadership positions of
platform co-chairs and subcommittee chairs are provided with the training and staff
support necessary to effectively manage the efforts of the increased number of
participants and ensure that the process runs smoothly. Beyond that, the wiki software
(with its subsequent upgrades) and the other existing communications tool (i.e. Yahoo!
Groups) should allow for the increase in participation described above, without the
process being negatively affected.
5.2 Other Participant Observations on the Process
From the feed-back collected in Appendix A it can be seen that most of the
participants who provided feed-back have found the process to be rewarding and
generally feel positive about it. There also seems to be a general agreement on how useful
32
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
a tool the wiki is and how it has helped to create a process which is inclusive and
participatory in nature. As one participant noted, “The living platform is an amazing use
of technology that allows policy to be developed by any and everyone and is thus truly
democratic”. There also seems to be a feeling that the GPC is undertaking a new
approach with this process, something that is distinctly different from what has come
before or in other words, “a revolutionary way to bring grassroots democracy back to the
forefront of Canadian politics” (if it was ever at the forefront).
One comment in particular that provides a good representation of how many of
those involved in this process feel about it is presented below.
“Every member of the Green Party had the opportunity to participate. Whether everyone
chose to do so is not the issue - the point is they were informed, and they had the
opportunity. That makes this the most inclusive policy development process of any
federal party, and one I’ve been very proud to have been a part of”.
It seems that it is this inclusiveness of the process and the degree of participation that it
allowed and encouraged which participants most appreciate and which strikes
participants as most unusual or different from the way that politics is usually conducted.
There are, however, other participants or observers who view this process as
being less than perfect. In particular, concerns have been raised about the technological
nature of this process, such as that the “…wiki selects for the more technically minded of
our party who have access to high speed internet, etc” and that there needs to be a
recognition that not everyone within this party is comfortable using computers, with
some even being morally opposed to their use. This would prevent these individuals from
fully involving themselves in the process and because of this, a suggestion was made that
“the Terms of Engagement for the ongoing Living Platform include a directive to the
33
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
wikiers to develop an outreach to non-tekkies for input to platform development”.
Another criticism dealt with the fact that only roughly 2.5 percent of the party
membership is involved in this process and because of this it was deemed that, “the
assembly membership [those involved in the process] is a kind of self-selected
aristocracy/oligarchy within the party, an elite of some kind” and this led the commenter
to question the democratic nature of the process: “It may be participatory, but it's not
wide enough or representative enough for me to be entirely comfortable calling it a
democracy”.
This type of criticism of the process evoked strong reactions from other
participants who disagreed with the assessment of this process as undemocratic. One
particular response seemed to counter the points raised above directly: “[t]he Assembly
was not selected at all. Every member of the Party was invited to participate through
several direct mailing and e-mails”. They went on to point out that in their view,
“[p]articipatory democracy does not mean that everyone participates. All it means is that
everyone who wants to participate is afforded the opportunity to do so”. The objection of
lack of internet access acting as a barrier to participation in this process was also
addressed with this commenter discussing the alternative of an Annual General Meeting
or Party Convention as the sole tool for policy development:
“Let's look at the alternative of the AGM though. Many were not able to attend due to
cost, commitments, etc. Sure they could mail in their ballots but were they really
participating or just voting on the recomendations of a small number of people?”
With questions of inclusiveness and the degree of democracy that this process
represents aside, there are two key comments that should be highlighted of the
importance that participants place in this process and the way in which this process can
34
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
help change the nature of politics in Canada. These comments speak for themselves and
they are presented in order below:
“The Living Platform is also something that significantly affects of all us. It is the
epitome of what being Green is.”
-------“Information is power. Giving more tools to share/manage information will in turn
change the dynamics of politics. I believe it will bring more transparency and ultimately
better decisions from our elected representatives.”
6.0 Process Limitations/Development Issues
The process being used by the GPC to develop Platform 2005 is not a traditional
approach to policy development and as a review of the literature showed, a similar
approach has not been attempted by any other Canadian party at the federal level thus far.
This process is also very new and has not been totally defined and is still evolving with
time. As the development of Platform 2005 has progressed certain limitations have
emerged and several development issues have become apparent. These limitations and
issues relate to the themes of the technological nature of the process and the control of the
process.
In terms of technological issues, using the wiki software and the Yahoo
Groups sites proved to be difficult for some participants and as such it proved to be a
barrier to participation. Much of this difficulty was, however, resolved by way of wiki
training sessions that were put on by GPC staff (with instructions available on the getting
started page of the Living Platform) and with the support of other participants who were
more comfortable working with the technology. For those without access to computers,
35
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
information on mailing in plank suggestions was apparent included in the physical mailout sent to party members to advertise this process but it is clear that this effort needs to
be increased to ensure that party members and non-members alike who do not have
access to a computer or who do not feel comfortable using one are able to contribute to
this process in a meaningful way. One issue at the time of writing was that the “Can I
participate without a computer?” link led to the “Platform 2005 Directory” page which
did not include an answer to this question. This issue will have to be resolved, with more
information on offline participation being made available.
The other main development issue that arose during the course of this process
involved regulation or control of the process. Since the wiki allows for participants not
only to contribute to policy creation but also to create their own pages to comment on
matters which are of interest to them, problems can sometimes arise. During this process,
problems arose when pages were being created to record information on various party
officials and those staff employed by the party. I was not privy to the content of these
pages but it was deemed be some party officials as libellous and the possibility that
having such pages on the GPCs official Living Platform could open the party to legal
action. By others, these pages were viewed as a natural progression of the wiki process
and a means of ensuring the accountability of party officials. It was seen that in time
everyone would have a wiki page where their exploits would be recorded “for the record”
and due to the nature of wiki these pages could be revised if misinformation was posted.
This situation led to the Living Platform wiki site being shut down for several
days and resulted in much debate over the administration of the wiki and which body of
the party the authority to manage the wiki should rest with. This matter is still being
36
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
discussed but the process continues to move along. One aspect of this problem is that the
Living Platform process is not enshrined in the GPCs constitution as an approved policy
development mechanism and as such, its place within the structure of the party is still
fairly undefined. There is a sense that those involved in the process what to see it assume
a central role as the main party policy-making tool while other participants and party
officials seem to see it more as a useful tool a this point and are reluctant to accord it such
a central role.
7.0 Results
7.1 Evaluation of the Process using the Established Evaluative Criteria
This section will provide the answers to the questions posed by the two sets of
evaluative criteria listed below.
1)
Is this process a desirable way for the GPC to develop its policy, is it generally
beneficial for the party?
a) Is this process an effective means of platform policy development?
The relative effectiveness of this project cannot be judged until the Platform 2005
process has actually produced a product. At this juncture, policy planks are being
created but there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the process is an
effective means of policy development.
b) Does this process contribute to raising the profile of the GPC?
The fact that I am writing about this process and that it is described in some detail
in The Canadian General Election of 2004 (Pammett and Dornan, eds.) indicates that
this process has already helped to raise the profile of the GPC and it is likely that it
will continue to do so in the future.
37
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
c) Does this process bring more people into the party?
At this point it does seem that this process brings people into the party in several
ways. The first is that supporters of the party who were not already members have
become members to enable them to participate fully in this process. Another way is
by getting non-party members involved as participants in this process. Non-members
have found out about this process, started to get involved by posting a comment to the
Living Platform site or simply browsing the pages and have wound up joining one of
the subcommittees and becoming involved in the process (statistics on non-member
were not available were not available at the time of writing).
d) Does this process represent an efficient use of party resources in terms of its
benefits (if any) to the party?
Considering the benefits to the GPC listed above and the fact that well over 100
people (including Assembly members and those who have posted comments, etc)
have volunteered their time to participate in this process, this process seems like quite
an efficient use of GPC resources, considering it only requires tech support to
maintain the Living Platform website and some process administration by GPC staff.
However, without information on the actual costs to the GPC no firm determination
can be made.
2)
Is this process desirable in terms of further democratization of the way in which
policy is developed by federal parties in Canada?
a) How user-friendly is the GPC process, what barriers to participation exist?
The GPC process is user-friendly if the user possesses some basic computer skills,
has access to a computer and even more-so if they have high speed internet access.
38
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
The barriers to participation that have been identified are lack of the basic computer
skills, lack of a high-speed internet connection, and lack of access to a computer in
general.
b) Who gets to participate in the GPC process, to what degree and through which
means?
On the Living Platform website, GPC members, registered users and site visitors
are all allowed to participate. Participants can also join the platform subcommittees
without having to be GPC members. Participants are able to be involved via e-mail or
by using the wiki software on the Living Platform website.
c) How is input from participants in this process used?
This question cannot be answered until the official GPC election platform
document is produced. Until then, the planks are just proposals which have not yet be
turned into official party policy.
d) For each above question, how does the GPC process compare to that of the other
federal political parties in Canada?
The information that is available on the other federal political parties is
insufficient to allow for this comparison to be made.
8.0 Conclusions/Project Limitations
After examining the GPCs platform policy development process it does seem that
this process is generally beneficial for the party. It also seems that it represents a
technological innovation in platform policy development in this country and as such a
change from the way in which it has traditionally been developed by the other federal
political parties in Canada. What cannot be concluded, however, is whether this process
39
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
is in fact a more participatory approach to federal party platform policy development in
Canada.
This conclusion cannot be made for two reasons. The first is that this process is
still ongoing and the amount of influence that it will have on the final creation of the
GPCs Platform 2005 is unknown. The second reason is that not enough information is
available on what influence participation in the platform policy development process of
the other parties has on their final election platforms.
9.0 Next Steps
Some of the questions that could not be answered in this report will be able to be
answered in time, such as the actual influence that participation in the Platform 2005
process had on the party policy and the GPCs official election platform, while others will
require more information to answer. Specifically, more reliable information is needed on
the way in which policy development is undertaken by the other federal political parties
in Canada and the role that party members and others are allowed to play in this policy
development process.
40
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
References:
Note: due to the evolving nature of the GPC Living Platform wiki, when citing pages
from it, information on when the page was last modified will be included. This
information will ensure that the proper version of the page can be found if the page has
since been modified. Past versions of a page can be viewed by clicking on the history
button on the top right-hand portion of the page in question.
Bloc Quebecois. 2005. Vie Democratique. http://www.blocquebecois.org/.
Carty, R. K., Cross, W., and Lisa Young. 2002. A New Canadian Party System. In Cross
(ed.). Political Parties, Representation, and Electoral Democracy in Canada. Oxford
University Press, Don Mills, Canada.
Conservative Party of Canada (Conservatives). 2005a. Convention 2005 Montreal.
http://www.conservative.ca/english/convention.asp.
Conservatives. 2005b. Party. http://www.conservative.ca/english/party.asp
Coutts, J. 2004. The Tenets and Constituency Roots of Liberalism – Overhauling The
Red Machine. Policy Options November 2004: 9-17.
Cross, W.P. 2004. Political Parties. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.
Green Party of Canada (GPC). 2004. How to draft a plank. http://lp.greenparty.ca/tikiindex.php?page_ref_id=255#id748037. Page last modified: Mon Nov 08 2004 3:44 pm
by michaelpilling.
Green Party of Canada (GPC). 2005. Home Page. http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php.
Page last modified: Thu Apr 07 2005 11:32 pm by admin.
41
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
Harada, Susan. 2004. The “Others”: A Quest for Credibility. In J.H. Pammett, and C.
Dornan (eds.). The Canadian General Election of 2004. The Dundurn Group, Toronto,
Canada.
Liberal Party of Canada (Liberals). 2005a. Policy Development.
http://www.liberal.ca/committees_e.aspx?id=3.
Liberal Party of Canada (Liberals). 2005b. Have Your Say: A Guide to Policy
Development. http://www.liberal.ca/PDF/hys(en)_hys(en).pdf.
Liberal Party of Canada (Liberals). 2005c. Policy Resolution Handbook.
http://www.liberal.ca/BCpolicy_e.aspx.
Pammett, J.H., L. LeDuc. 2004. Behind the Turnout Decline. In J.H. Pammett, and C.
Dornan (eds.). The Canadian General Election of 2004. The Dundurn Group, Toronto,
Canada.
TikiWiki. 2005. Welcome to Tikiwiki. http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=TikiWiki.
Wikipedia. 2005. Collaborative Software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_software. Page last modified: Mar 29
11:42pm, 2005.
42
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
Appendix A – Participant Observations
Note – to maintain authenticity, the original text of these comments was maintained and
as such there may be uncorrected grammatical or spelling errors.
1. The process is not bad at all, once you get familiar with it. It strikes me as a very
inclusive, productive way to have people interact on policy development. I really
like the ability to reach out to non Green Party concerns such as the NGO
community, to get assistance in the development of policies.
2. I have found this process rewarding, overwhelming, confusing at times, and
frustrating. -- I love that my ideas can be added, discussed, revised, and turned
into plank suggestions! I think the Wiki is a wonderful environment, and that this
process the Green Party is pioneering is a revolutionary way to bring grassroots
democracy back to the forefront of Canadian politics.
3. I am very interested in getting learning of your recent experience and in
collaborating in your efforts to get the greens more virtual. Regarding the
Swedish electoral work, we are in the phase of making decisions and I yesterday I
got the acceptance of the proposal of creating a virtual platform (and I love Wiki)
for interaction with the organizations of the civil society, as well for discussions
with individual citizens. I have the intention of getting all candidates (or as many
of the as possible) to understand the importance of the new political arenas, such
as virtual spaces.
4. Information is power. Giving more tools to share/manage information will in turn
change the dynamics of politics. I believe it will bring more transparency and
ultimately better decisions from our elected representatives.
5. To me the Living Platform represents the very best of the Green Party. It
represents the idea that the average citizen should be empowered to make change.
It represents a way to build consensus before an election so that we do not have
43
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
to sell our platform during one. Most importantly, it makes the ideal of full
participatory democracy one step closer to becoming a reality.
6. The living platform is an amazing use of technology that allows policy to be
developed by any and everyone and is thus truly democratic.
7. The Living Platform is also something that significantly affects of all us. It is the
epitome of what being Green is.
8. The GPC members involved in the Living Platform or at least the planks
teams, number around 75-100 as far as I know. The last I heard late last
summer the party's total paid membership was pushing 4000. So the
assembly membership is a kind of self-selected aristocracy/oligarchy
within the party, an elite of some kind. It may be participatory, but
it's not wide enough or representative enough for me to be entirely
comfortable calling it a democracy.
9. There is a grave danger in the wiki. The wiki selects for the more technically
minded of our party who have access to high speed internet, etc. There are Greens
who view computers as the work of the devil, as part of the agenda to turn
humanity into the slaves of machines and technology. They make a valid case that
our environmental and cultural collapse is a direct result of scientific reductionism
and our addiction to technology. I would suggest that the Terms of Engagement
for the ongoing Living Platform include a directive to the wikiers to develop an
outreach to non-tekkies for input to platform development.
10. What is amazing with the proces is that those who want to be
involved can, and easily in most cases. the other solutions are
meetings or mails ballots which are incredibly inneficient. The
process is ongoing and fine-tunes itself.
11. I will speak for myself only - this is not an opposition party within the party,
it is just that I am VERY close to voting with my feet at this point. Its very
personally dissappointing: I was encouraged to see something take root that
might be a model for participatory democracy - remember the 'crowd' usually has
the right answer - and I'm really pissed at the site take down/editing without
notice, without any attempts at apriori intervention or terms of use
enforcement. This should not be politics as usual. Then again, maybe "someday
is not now".
12. The Assembly was not selected at all. Every member of the Party was invited to
participate through several direct mailing and e-mails. I myself have probably
done 10 hours sending e-mails to members or calling asking for their
participation. Participatory democracy does not mean that everyone participates.
All it means is that everyone who wants to participate is afforded the
opportunity to do so. I know the objection that those without internet access
44
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
are unable to participate has come up. Let's look at the alternative of the AGM
though. Many were not able to attend due to cost, committments, etc. Sure they
could mail in their ballots but were they really participating or just voting on
the recomendations of a small number of people?
13. Every member of the Green Party had the opportunity to participate. Whether
everyone chose to do so is not the issue - the point is they were informed, and
they had the opportunity. That makes this the most inclusive policy development
process of any federal party, and one I’ve been very proud to have been a part of.
14. A policy meeting is not nearly as effective at developing grass roots policy as the
wiki because there are barriers to entry (how many can't afford to go to Ottawa in
March)
15. …the LP allows great exchanges and if someone wants to have
his word on an issue or policy, nothing prevents him expressing it on
the LP.
45
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
Appendix B – guidelines for plank leaders
As much as we like policy development to be about explaining “our big idea”, to be
relevant and credible we have to be fully informed, and able to constructively criticize
what is on the government’s current agenda. At this stage, most Green Party of Canada
activity is actually forms of lobbying.
Accordingly, our policy planks should be developed with a full understanding of where
the government is at, what others say about where the government is at, and what other
people in the world are doing about this problem, how they solve it.
Primary Development
Primary development is that which must be done when you are starting scratch on a
plank. As of fall 2004, most planks, even those included in Platform 2004, still require
primary development.
1. Start with the appropriate government websites. If you cannot find a federal
government website pertaining to your plank, this may not be a federal
issue. Learn the terminology used by government to describe the issues.
Most political issues will have least one NGO commenting on them.
Encylopedia articles, including Online Encyclopedias will establish terms
of reference.
2. Obtain copies of the Estimates – Plans and Priorities for your ministry or
portfolio. These are the annual reports that each ministry or agency submits
to Parliament, they contain project plans, timetables and budget estimates.
Find any comment or review from think tank or political party sources,
media commentary, especially criticisms, to deepen your sense of what is
known to be problematic or questionable, and what is generally accepted.
3. Read the Estimates to get a general sense of what the ministry has been
doing, and the other comment for a sense of how it's been criticized. If you
like, obtain a copy of the ministry’s sustainable development plan and ask
how it intends to meet Kyoto Protocol commitments which devolve on all
federal agencies. Put all the results of your research up in Living Platform
like any other researcher - this will help to attract other trolls who will
comment on it and keep doing the research as you shift to policy:
4. Develop a list of questions you might have for the appropriate minister even a questionnaire such as those you see in Answers to Questionnaires
2004. Develop a policy proposal and submit is for stage one approval to the
PC via the Living Platform - effectively at this point it is a 200 word stub
with many links to material especially backgrounders.
5. Take your list of questions to three NGO’s, scour their web pages and other
materials, refine your questions, and then ask NGO persons who are
working in your area about them and the proposed policy. Ask if these are
46
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
the questions they would ask. Ask who else you should ask. Consider using
the delphi method.
6. Refine your questions based on feedback from the NGO’s and then call
some people in the relevant ministry or agency. (having found their phone
number from the website or government publications) Most civil servants
like answering questions put politely, if they are put in the terms that the
civil servant understands. Try to build your list of contacts within the
federal civil service. Higher level civil servants will be more political about
giving answers, researchers and scientists less so.
7. By yourself or in your subcommittee, define issues, what the GPC position
ought to be, and assemble supporting arguments. This is known as the IPA
approach.
8. Augment your positions by reviewing cross party platform comparison to
see what positions other parties have taken. Develop a sense of which
Canadian federal political parties' positions you are close to, or advocating
moving closer to. Refine your arguments based on how your plank differs
from each other major party NDP, Conservative, Liberal and Bloc
Quebecois.
9. Based on all this research, and ongoing input from subcommittee members
and advisors, submit your plank to the co-chairs and they will help you
work with other Greens and the Platform Ctte. Invite others to help
answering the questions you have posed. Consult widely, and let people
participate, don’t resist changes.
10. If you have sucessfully completed the above steps, congratualtions. You
have become a skilled plank leader. It may now be best for you to pass off
the responsibility for your plank, and repeat 1-7 on another plank. (People
who can do 1-7 are actually much more valuable to the GPC than those
who can do these later steps).
Secondary Development
Secondary development usually occurs after the Platform 2005 Assembly has
given its first approval to the plank.
1. Sketch out a plan with a timetable for implementing the plank with cost
estimates. Flesh out the plank by searching the web and locating similar
plans being implemented elsewhere in the world. Nothing truly new really
is ever done - at least not in government.
2. Work your policy plank up into a five page report complete with five
facts/quotes/charts and submit it to the PC via Living Platform, integrating
all other reasonable changes made by others and using the terminology they
suggest if at all possible. At this point there should be four or five people
working with you, known trolls who can at least be counted on to object to
47
Party Platform Policy Development and the Green Party of Canada
Jeff Harti
anything insensible or contrary to fact or prior commitments. Platform 2005
Assembly will offer feedback, and recruit editors and copywriters to
prepare a final text. If necessary the co-chairs will assign someone to this.
3. Edit the chart indicating where the Greens stand on the major issues vis-àvis the other parties - to assist others in cross party policy comparison.
4. Identify the “distinction that makes the difference” - what is the three to
seven word phrase, preferably a verb phrase, that the Greens can "own" in
the public mind and which actually sets the agenda for all of the other
parties
5. Write about this distinction in a 200 word plank summary; provide this to
your editor. This should rewrite and re-present your initial proposal and
have roughly the same scope. If scope has changed drastically, why What
other work might you have to do to fill it out
6. Consolidate your list of reference materials and carefully footnote your
sources, asking permission as appropriate for web sources and extensive
use of quotations (more than one full page, anything less is "fair use").
7. Pass your finished plank around to some professionals and get their
feedback: print pages from the Living Platform with the link on them
clearly visible so people can get to the page and contribute. You never
know to whom the stuff will be passed!
8. Help the Co-chairs guide the finished result into the platform and prepare a
news release on your plank. #Identify any legislator who should be
involved if you haven't already. Engage their support if they consider this a
strategic issue, that is, one of five to seven issues that there is a unique
opportunity to address during an election campaign, e.g. Auditor-General's
role during 2004 election.
9. Keep your research on hand: Be ready to answer questions on your policy
to voters, candidates and the media. Read interest group briefings to find
any reference to policy directions that may reinforce or contradict your
work.
10. Write a position paper to summarize all of your input to any and all of the
above.
11. If you have actually done all the steps above and are interested in being a
candidate for the GPC in your area, contact the Platform 2005 Shadow
Cabinet to see if you can assist the party further by volunteering to be a
policy spokesperson for the party.
48