NDP Convention: status quo versus real change

I’m heading to the NDP convention tomorrow to report for Rank and File.ca and write a feature for the Globe and Mail. Possibly the first time these two things have ever been done by one human. Follow along, it’s going to be nerd heaven.

But first: a quick note about the NDP’s democracy problem. Two days ago, their policy document dropped. It’s 151 pages with between one to three motions per page.

You can check out the motions here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19wnqV2KbWRoDqpXIOOxwql2fzgkEjJMAZi7bcuqMRrE/edit#gid=0

Understandably, many delegates are unimpressed with this massive document. It’s long and confusing and, what I find most annoying, repeats the same motions over and over. Many motions express support for campaigns or policies that are already part of NDP cannon. If there was a concerted effort to bury democracy through presenting way too many motions, the evidence is here. If there wasn’t and this is the result of an active membership, it hardly serves them to host the NDP Hunger Games tomorrow as people fight to order the resolutions in such a way that their favourite ones make it to the floor.

The NDP’s motions deadline was in mid-December. My sources tell me that there is a committee that reviews them, maybe edits them, suggests changes to the motions that, I don’t know, might require changes, but that it’s the director of the party who makes the call over what goes in where to the motions package. Melissa Bruno is the current national director. She was Jagmeet Singh’s Chief of Staff at Queen’s Park and started working in politics for Jack Layton (at least according to this cached bio from the Toronto Environmental Alliance). Many people are upset that motions that have the most endorsements from various ridings have been buried amid other motions. Friday morning, they’ll be sorted.

The vast majority of motions only have one motivator, so the practice of circulating motions to other ridings in advance of a convention is a strategic organizing method to demonstrate that support exists, but that isn’t practiced broadly. Ideally, motions with the most support would be moved higher up in a package. But this only applies to a few motions, so that logic alone can’t be the only way to decide this.

This package should have been sent out much earlier: that’s one obvious problem. But there are other democratic ways to ensure that, at least, people have time to consider what is in the package.

I always thought that the way Quebec Solidaire put motions forward for its conventions was confusing but their processes can teach a lot about how to make this process better. I‘ve participated in many pre-congress riding general meetings so, here we go.

In QS, motions are served far in advance of a congress. Local riding associations meeting and propose amendments to the motions. Those amendments are received and, importantly, grouped together such that you deal with an issue at a time, rather than having your eleven basic income motions more or less randomly sprinkled throughout.

Motions that are identical are combined. Motions that are similar are placed together so you can see the side-by-side difference. Sometimes you vote for Options A or B, or A through E — but they’re all on a particular matter at one time.

Then, importantly, ridings receive the amended package and asked to vote again on it. Riding delegates are either directed to vote in proportion to how a riding voted on a motion (for example: two thirds vote means two thirds of delegates can vote in a particular way), or the delegates vote in a block. Or they have a free vote.

This forces the party to be on top of its game with policy motions. Sure, the package is still long and sure, there are many improvements that need to be made to how QS conducts its conventions, but at the base, I don’t get the feeling that the leadership is trying to pull one over on the membership with a motion explosion (say that aloud for it s intended effect).

The 2016 convention’s big story was the (accidental?) beheading of a leader, and the discontent that allowed for that to happen hasn’t been solved by Singh’s leadership — clearly, the sheer number of motions served to address internal democratic workings is proof of this. Was Singh the candidate of change like he promised, or was he the status quo candidate the whole time? While the answer to these questions is certainly grey, I’m excited to take the temperature this weekend on just what kind of grey we’re talking about here …

And if you want to chat with me during the convention (bonus points if we’ve never met), please come find me.