Darren Johnson puts forward the case for leadership of the Green Party
For years there has been an
ongoing debate in the Green Party about our national
structures and what titles we should give our main
spokespeople, culminating in the proposal at this year’s
Spring Conference. If this has been passed the Green
Party will be engaged in the widest internal consultation
ever on a single constitutional issue. I wanted to
contribute to this debate in terms of both the UK
political scene, and that of Green Parties worldwide. We
can begin by looking close to home. The Scottish Green
Party has two joint leaders, who are also the
co-conveners of Scottish Greens’ national Council. The
Northern Ireland Greens and Greens in the Irish Republic
have an interlinked structure, with the NI Greens
operating regionally within a pan-Irish framework. This
is headed by a single leader, Trevor Sargent TD, but
there are also two co-leaders for Northern Ireland.
European Greens
The Italian Green Party has a president who is also currently cabinet minister for the environment. The Spanish Greens, too, have a president while the Belgian party Groen moved to a party president role in 2003. The Finnish Greens also have a single leader.
Global Greens
Canada has a single Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, who is tipped to win a seat in the near future in Parliament even under their UK-style first-past-the-post system. Brazil also has a single leader, while Peru Greens elect a president for their party. Australia has a convenor and deputy convenor, while New Zealand has two co-leaders.
The only significant example of not having a leader comes from the German Greens, who have co-chairs, but of course it has been the de facto leader, former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who has taken the limelight. This perhaps demonstrates that even if party structures are not constituted to create accountable posts for high profile individuals, that does not necessarily stop leadership figures having a massive influence. Unfortunately, however, this is usually outside the important checks and balances that an elected leader structure provides.
The real issue we ought to debate is what is most appropriate for the political context here in the UK. In a poll carried out in 2004 by the External Communications Co-coordinator 49 journalists out of the fifty questioned said they would give more coverage to the Green Party if there was a leader. This brings us to the issue of media coverage, crucial for any political party. The editorial structure of BBC political reporting is geared up around reporting fairly what the leaders of the political parties say and do, and they have detailed internal rules on how to do this. The Greens, because of our current set-up, are currently not included. And of course there is the issue of how the media treats us for not having a leader, and Conference’s repeated attempts to secure one…
European Greens
The Italian Green Party has a president who is also currently cabinet minister for the environment. The Spanish Greens, too, have a president while the Belgian party Groen moved to a party president role in 2003. The Finnish Greens also have a single leader.
Global Greens
Canada has a single Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, who is tipped to win a seat in the near future in Parliament even under their UK-style first-past-the-post system. Brazil also has a single leader, while Peru Greens elect a president for their party. Australia has a convenor and deputy convenor, while New Zealand has two co-leaders.
The only significant example of not having a leader comes from the German Greens, who have co-chairs, but of course it has been the de facto leader, former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who has taken the limelight. This perhaps demonstrates that even if party structures are not constituted to create accountable posts for high profile individuals, that does not necessarily stop leadership figures having a massive influence. Unfortunately, however, this is usually outside the important checks and balances that an elected leader structure provides.
The real issue we ought to debate is what is most appropriate for the political context here in the UK. In a poll carried out in 2004 by the External Communications Co-coordinator 49 journalists out of the fifty questioned said they would give more coverage to the Green Party if there was a leader. This brings us to the issue of media coverage, crucial for any political party. The editorial structure of BBC political reporting is geared up around reporting fairly what the leaders of the political parties say and do, and they have detailed internal rules on how to do this. The Greens, because of our current set-up, are currently not included. And of course there is the issue of how the media treats us for not having a leader, and Conference’s repeated attempts to secure one…
Greens
tackle the ‘L’ word once more
(The Guardian, Friday September 9, 2005)
Peter Cranie, the party general election coordinator, points to the New Zealand Greens as a role model. The party there has two co-leaders, and is one of the few Green parties worldwide to have won seats under a first past the post system. He said: “It’s about moral leadership, which we already have in abundance, but this puts it in place officially. I’m strongly in favour.” Welsh activist Jonathan Spink said: “The Welsh Greens recently opted for a leader on a full vote of the membership, and I’d be in favour of a full leader and deputy leader option for the national party, as it would create clear lines of responsibility.”
That point about clear lines of responsibility has some resonance in a party essentially governed by an Executive of 12 and a Regional council of 18, not to mention a Standing Orders Committee and Conferences Committee which have 5 places each. A key point that the media make again and again is that how can anyone know who represents the Greens and who can be held publicly accountable? The 40 people on the Executive, Regional council and national committees?
Members, for good reason, are strongly opposed to having a Blair or Thatcher style leader who totally dominates every fibre of the party and stifles internal debate. But we must remember that leadership doesn’t necessarily mean control. We know from history there are very different models of leadership. Greens internationally have shown that it is possible to reject an authoritarian model of leadership while embracing a model based on the ability to enthuse, inspire and motivate.
It seems that there are a variety of structures available. What is important is that if Greens in England and Wales do engage in a process to change our own structures we do it in a way that is befitting of Green debate, calmly and rationally with respect for different viewpoints.
So I urge you to get involved in the party-wide debate on this issue, and make sure your voice is heard, either through local discussions, email lists, other forms of participation, but most importantly, by casting your vote if we have a referendum. After all, if the whole party is being asked, then the whole party should try and answer. It’s your party.
AGAINST - Read comments by Irene Willis
JOIN THE DEBATE - post your comments
(The Guardian, Friday September 9, 2005)
Peter Cranie, the party general election coordinator, points to the New Zealand Greens as a role model. The party there has two co-leaders, and is one of the few Green parties worldwide to have won seats under a first past the post system. He said: “It’s about moral leadership, which we already have in abundance, but this puts it in place officially. I’m strongly in favour.” Welsh activist Jonathan Spink said: “The Welsh Greens recently opted for a leader on a full vote of the membership, and I’d be in favour of a full leader and deputy leader option for the national party, as it would create clear lines of responsibility.”
That point about clear lines of responsibility has some resonance in a party essentially governed by an Executive of 12 and a Regional council of 18, not to mention a Standing Orders Committee and Conferences Committee which have 5 places each. A key point that the media make again and again is that how can anyone know who represents the Greens and who can be held publicly accountable? The 40 people on the Executive, Regional council and national committees?
Members, for good reason, are strongly opposed to having a Blair or Thatcher style leader who totally dominates every fibre of the party and stifles internal debate. But we must remember that leadership doesn’t necessarily mean control. We know from history there are very different models of leadership. Greens internationally have shown that it is possible to reject an authoritarian model of leadership while embracing a model based on the ability to enthuse, inspire and motivate.
It seems that there are a variety of structures available. What is important is that if Greens in England and Wales do engage in a process to change our own structures we do it in a way that is befitting of Green debate, calmly and rationally with respect for different viewpoints.
So I urge you to get involved in the party-wide debate on this issue, and make sure your voice is heard, either through local discussions, email lists, other forms of participation, but most importantly, by casting your vote if we have a referendum. After all, if the whole party is being asked, then the whole party should try and answer. It’s your party.
AGAINST - Read comments by Irene Willis
JOIN THE DEBATE - post your comments
