|
X Close Window |
ONE KIND OF MEMBERSHIP
Herschel Hardin Leadership Campaign
Policy Circular 12 • May 25, 1995 |
|
|
This issue is a difficult one, because it involves ending the affiliate memberships of the labour movement. Some people worry that by our addressing this issue, those in the labour movement who would otherwise be attracted to our leadership campaign will simply distance themselves and might even, on this issue alone, work against us, defeating the politics of the future that we are trying to create.
It is far better, however, that we discuss this issue in the open. There is considerable bitterness or, even worse, shrugging of shoulders and resignation, among many NDP members and particularly ex members, over the inequality of one group having, effectively, block voting power and influence in the party. The extent of the damage to the party is hidden by our reticence in talking about it, especially in talking about it to members from the labour movement itself. The damage runs deep nevertheless.
I believe that by ending affiliate memberships, both the labour movement and the party will benefit. They will each in their own way achieve an extra degree of freedom. The dynamics of that freedom, in turn, will enrich both sides and add energy, verve, and strength to democratic socialism in Canada.
Let me say, first, that I am and always have been a friend of the labour movement. Aside from the movement's basic mission, I appreciate, perhaps more than most, because I have a long memory, the role it has taken in standing up on issues far beyond its own immediate interest, and doing so when it took courage and conviction. Medicare, resistance to the Vietnam war, civil liberties, and anti apartheid come to mind. I am sure you can all add to the list. As the author of A Nation Unaware and The Privatization Putsch, I have spoken to labour conferences in different parts of the country. I contributed on many occasions to The Facts, the late journal of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I am a union member myself, albeit of a non affiliated union of a quite particular kind, the Writers' Union of Canada.
I should say, as well, that this isn't a side issue, to be left to some constitutional convention at a later date. It is integral to the kind of party which is going to carry us into the future. The new party leader, moreover, while having a responsibility to work within the existing constitution, will not be just another member with a vote, showing up at convention time. He or she will wield considerable influence and leverage towards any restructuring. All leadership candidates, therefore, should make their positions known.
Reasons for Restructuring
Our party should have only one kind of membership individual membership because, in the end, anything else is ill fitting and undemocratic. I extend this same principle to financial contributions because, as we know only too well from corporate contributions to the other parties money is a voting proxy. Party financial contributions, accordingly, should be limited to individuals and have a low dollar ceiling. This is something that will only go into effect when it is legislated for all political parties, but it is also something we should be pushing from the hustings. It is both the right thing to do and will help re establish our populist credentials.
Secondly, the party and the union movement share basic philosophy but do not always share the same interests. Not only are their agendas different, but their cultures and dynamics are different, because of what they are meant to do and whom they represent. Any of us can think of areas where the two cultures recently have come into conflict. The environmental battles in B.C. are one such instance. Our failure to take control of the debt and deficit issue a crucial strategic opportunity missed is another. The discord between the public sector unions in Ontario and the Ontario provincial government is another. The failure of the party to take an interest in the changing nature of work and to represent those whose work does not lend itself to unionization is another. The abandoning of enterprise and economic creativity as a key element of the federal party is yet another.
Conflicts and even missed opportunities are a part of life. Where one element in the party, however, because of its affiliate memberships, has unequal influence, the resolution of conflicts and the assessment of opportunities is distorted. This influence bears not only on decision making, but also on the culture, language, and imagination of the party. One keeps coming back to that one matter, inequality, and inequality is a sure recipe for disaffection.
Third, the argument that, without the formal affiliation, we would be bereft financially is unconvincing. It had some validity when the party was formed: to give the successor to the CCF the financial strength to compete with the old line parties. The advent of an income tax credit for political contributions, direct mail fund raising, public subsidies of political campaigns, and national television debates has changed all that. Most of our money by far comes from individual contributions. An energetic populist party, based on one kind of membership, would raise our level of revenue.
More importantly, this restructuring does not, of course, end the relationship between the union movement and the party. Quite the contrary. I believe it will improve the relationship, on both sides, because it is more apt. It recognizes differences and reduces false expectations. I envision, paradoxically, more commitment of the labour movement to the politics of democratic socialism, rather than less. The New Democratic Party is the natural political home of the labour movement, by the party's very nature. Conversely, the party will be made to realize that it has constantly to earn the votes of the union rank and file and constantly to attract them, as individuals, to party membership.
Last, and least, but still important, is the widespread perception, among many voters, that the party is just the handmaiden of the labour unions. We all know how ironic that charge is, given the independence that several NDP provincial governments have shown, and especially given the extra party connections of the Liberals, Conservatives, and Reform parties. Yet as long as affiliated memberships exist in the NDP's constitution, this misgiving will continue to plague us, for understandable reasons.
I am asking the labour movement, in other words, to share "ownership" of this party on an equal basis with other movements and with individuals at large. "On an equal basis" is the key element, that is, one kind of membership. I know how difficult this change is going to be, in a deep, personal sense, for many people in the labour movement who have given so unstintingly and passionately to the party. It is a challenge to their understanding which I hope they will accept.
In any case, I believe the change is something we have to undertake.
|
|
