When I first joined the Green party nine years ago, I was
amazed to learn that elected party representatives where not subjected to some
form of party whipping system. I queried this, asking if this meant they could
vote for pretty much anything they wanted to, regardless of party policy and
the wishes of their local members? The answer was yes. I was told that the local
party had the power to deselect elected representatives, but that would be
after their current period in office. And that was one reason why we should be
careful who we selected in the first place.
I have never changed my mind on the undesirability of this
position, for all sorts of reasons, which I will come to in a moment. But
first, I should explain that I have found that amongst Green party members this
‘un-whipped politicians’ status is something that is deeply cherished, a
shibboleth even, an example of the party being different. I have no doubt that
this blog post will attract some criticism.
It seems to me, that if you going to be a member of a
political party, and seek election under that party’s banner, then you should
uphold that party’s policies and take notice of what the membership of that
party think. Otherwise, you should stand as an independent.
It is also something of a fraud on the electors if you get
elected as a representative of a party, and then pursue your own agenda.
Another deeply cherished notion (and I agree with this one
myself) in the Green party is of internal democracy. The members make the
policies, as it should be, not some remote leadership clique. But this is
exactly what can happen with elected representatives. The leadership of
Brighton and Hove Green council group has regularly rejected the wishes of the
local membership, and indeed some of the Green councillors over the past few
years, by setting their own agenda for the council and ignoring even the most
explicit views of the membership.
It’s not just local members either. With Brighton being the
first Green led council, whatever happens in Brighton is reflected across the
country onto other local Green parties, and can have a negative electoral
impact. Just so some individual councillors can have the freedom to follow
their own agendas.
With the Green party increasing in popularity of late, it is
highly likely that we will win more representation at elections, including at
parliament, and so this issue will be in the spotlight more and more, and will
surely baffle the electorate, who thought they were voting for one thing, and
get an entirely different thing in practice.
When I first joined the Greens, the party didn’t have a
leader, which I thought was a bit odd, but I came to be in favour of this set
up. We were then told that this was a state of affairs that confused the voters
and media alike, so we had to change it. And we duly did.
Well, having un-whipped party representatives falls into the
same reasoning, i.e. the voters and media will be confused by it, so should
this not be changed also?
I’m not arguing for councillors and MPs to be rigidly told
what to do on every single issue, but where there is a clear direction from
members, be it national conference or local party meetings, there should be no
question of representatives taking anything but the party line.
At the very least anyone who gains standing in the Party for any post should be subject to questioning on matters of Policy.
ReplyDeletee.g. Attitudes to Sex, Sexuality and Women are clearly stated in policy. Is it right therefore that Fundimentalist Xtians who masquerade under the banner of 'Traditional Christians' and hold views abhorrent to many Party members are giving advice on how to 'keep quiet' about such views as members of the Party
Not only is it potentially confusing for the electorate and harmful for our election prospects, but I actually think it's irrational too.
ReplyDeleteThe whipping system invokes so much popular opprobrium because in contemporary politics it has become a way for the elite vanguard of the establishment parties to push through their own agenda in defiance of the views of the majority of party members and also voters. NHS privatisation is a good example.
Rejecting the whipping system in these circumstances makes sense. It would help individual MPs reject the self-interested dictates of party leadership in order to facilitate the will of the electorate.
But the Green Party does not find itself in the same position as the establishment parties. Its democratic system of policy-making ensures that the party line will always broadly correspond with the will of both members and voters. Under these circumstances, whipping serves to achieve the opposite of what it achieves for the establishment parties: it ensures that the democratically decided policies are upheld.
Whipping for the establishment parties ensures that the leadership's self-interest in pursued, in spite of whether or not they are supported by members and voters.
Why members and voters of establishment parties expect their leaders to do anything other than pursue their self-interest irrespective of what members and voters think is a completely different argument. But until this situation changes, whipping in establishment parties will remain problematic.
We are not an establishment party. Our leadership does not pursue their self-interest irrespective of what members and voters think. Whipping in the Green Party thus serves to ensure integrity.