The Greens and Democracy

Green Party Co-leader, Russel Norman, will soon take a seat in Parliament. "Retiring" Green Party list MP, Nandor Tanczos, will be vacating his seat before the election to allow his party's co-leader, who was 10th on the party list at the last election, to enter the House. Catherine Delahunty and Mike Ward, who were 8th and 9th respectively, have indicated they are not available to fill the vacancy, leaving the way open for Mr. Norman.

When Nandor Tanczos offered several weeks ago to stand aside to allow Mr. Norman to enter Parliament, Mike Ward had initially refused to step aside. This caused Mr. Tanczos to withdraw his offer and say he would stay until the election.

Many Greens were not happy with Mr. Ward's stance, seeing him as putting himself above the interest of the wider party and its supporters. Mr. Ward reconsidered his stance and will now indicate he is not available to fill any vacancy.

Greens appear to be very happy with this outcome.

Russel Norman was highly ranked last time and Green voters voted for the entire list.

Since then, Green Party members (any member financial for at least 6 months is eligible to vote) democratically elected Russell Norman as party co-leader.

Since THEN all Green Party members have voted AGAIN on list rankings and placed him even higher on the list than last time.

This repeated and consistent level of support is more open, more frequent and more democratic than any other party I can think of - and especially those parties whose more vocal supporters have criticised the Greens for Norman entering the House at this time.

Nandor Tanczos has said publicly he believes it a good thing to leave the House early if one is not to stand again, allowing someone else who likely will be there to get on with it. This is a very worthwhile and pragmatic move. Typical of the best ideals Greens uphold.

I haven't heard any Greens say publicly or privately that they are unhappy with this or deem it to be undemocratic.

Critics on the right end of the political spectrum have gone more or less ballistic. Their arguments are hypocritical at best. Over on Kiwiblog, they are having a wonderful time.

Why are National Party supporters angered by what the Greens have done? It can’t be out of concern for the democratic rights of Greens (or anyone else) as National hopes to wipe those off the political map entirely by dumping MMP via a self-serving referendum. Why self-serving? We won't see a similar referendum on assets sales should we see a National government ruling alone later this year. But we would get a referendum on how they are elected. They have made it clear they don't like the way they have been relegated to their true level of voter support by MMP.

These critics can't be upset because the Greens aren’t democratic internally. Greens are arguably the most democratic party of all who currently hold seats.

Every eligible Green Party member who chose to voted on the ranking of the entire 2005 list. Russel Norman was ranked 10th - a high place.

Every eligible Green Party member who chose to voted in 2006 on who was to be the new male co-leader: Russel Norman was elected.

Every eligible Green Party member who chose to voted, just a few weeks ago, on the ranking for the entire 2008 party list. Norman was placed even higher after that.

The several thousand Green Party members insist on their party being robustly democratic.

These are all things National Party members can’t do. When was the last time the party leader (or deputy) was elected by all party members? Never?

They can't vote to rank their list either. They can't even choose who will be on it nationally. The BEST they can do is help select their one electorate candidate, who MAY also be on the list IF that local candidate agrees to also stand for the list. Also, the National Party head office can unilaterally select up to 5 others for the list. Party members have no say.

The 'outrage' of National Party supporters vocal on Norman entering the House is utterly misplaced. Greens are very happy to have their male co-leader in the House, to support Jeanette Fitzsimons and the rest of the Parliamentary team. She has lead the Greens alone in Parliament since Co-Leader Rod Donald's untimely and sudden death a month after the 2005 elections. That was the event that left the best candidate to replace Donald as male co-leader stranded outside the House.

The record shows that Russel Norman has been repeatedly and democratically endorsed as a representative by Green Party members - at the last election and since.

In countries that use First Past the Post, a new party leader (like Canada’s past Conservative party leader, Brian Mulroney) enters the House of Commons after some loyal MP vacates his safe seat for a by-election to rubber stamp the new party leader. By convention, the other major party does not even stand a candidate.

The Green Party have done nothing inappropriate. Instead, they have done what will best represent Green Party voters and brought their co-leader into the House by the rules as laid down in the electoral law. That is what representatives are supposed to do: represent.

By every measure I’m aware, the Green Party run a more open and democratic shop than the National Party does. National Party supporters slagging the Greens off should perhaps devote some of that energy to seeking a more open democratic method of choosing leaders, choosing candidates and ranking list candidates nationally within their own party.

If National party members push REAL hard, they may even be allowed to know what their party's policies are. Push even harder and they might even have a say in what those policies might be. Imagine!

Perhaps it’s a culture thing. Greens practice the widest possible democracy internally and support MMP, while the National Party practices its own, more limited form, of internal democratic franchise and at the same time agitates to get rid of MMP……out of self interest….thus deriving Greens (and most other parties) of ANY representation at all!

Hypocrisy very much in evidence…..but the shade appears to be distinctly blue.