National political conventions, as we know them and as a way to choose political party leaders, in Canada, were a post World Was II nod to democratization. Traditionally, party leaders were chosen by their colleagues, the men and women who served as MPs and Senators, who were deemed to know them best and most capable of determining who would make the best parliamentary leader. Perhaps attempting to emulate the huge media events – and free publicity opportunities – that American presidential nominating conventions became with the advent of television, the Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties used extravagant delegated conventions to garner free prime-time television coverage to spread their message and introduce new leaders to the electorate. In delegated conventions, local party organizations choose or elect delegates who then elect a leader at an extravagant national convention . In its purest form, the delegates are unencumbered; they are free to vote for whichever candidate they choose and to change their vote if and as consensus builds around a particular candidate. It makes for suspense, drama and great television. More recently, however, parties have encumbered delegates to support particular candidates based on party-wide membership voting as they attempt to show that every member’s choice matters.
The Liberal Party of Canada has scheduled a national delegated leadership convention for May 2009 in which it will attempt to roll-back the clock and rectify the mistake most Liberals acknowledge they made in Montréal in 2006. As it stands now, local pledged delegates will be elected the last weekend in March to attend a convention in Vancouver a month later and choose a new leader. With only three candidates, and one of those unlikely to have more than token regional support, it is entirely possible that the result will be known weeks before the convention. There will be no drama and no excitement aside from the pundits speculating on how much the whole thing is costing in money the Liberal Party doesn’t have and can’t afford to borrow.
One cannot help but wonder how the events of this past week, the launch of a collaborative government proposal, would have been different if the Liberals had a more popular leader around who they could rally. The Conservative government may well fall by the end of January, if it fulfills its promise to resume Parliament on January 26, and there is no guarantee that the current prime minister will not get his wish for a general election. The Liberals could be going into a second election in 4 months with a leader even they do not want.
Surely this constitutes an “emergency“ sufficient to warrant cancelling the Vancouver delegated convention and replacing it with a more expeditious and modern process. It’s not a time to return to MPs and Senators selecting the party leader. If it were, the Liberals could finish the process this weekend and we know who the winner would be. But it’s not impossible for the Liberals to move up the local balloting to mid January AND institute a preferential balloting system in which party members indicate their first, second and third choices. A simple spread-sheet program will enable the party to identify a winner well before parliament resumes.
The benefits, an earlier and desperately needed decision, saving millions of dollars and avoiding the ignominy of insider vote-trading at a televised convention, more than offset the benefit of the weekend of free television coverage. The party can buy that time far more economically than it can hold the convention. The only losers would be Vancouver hotel workers and cab drivers, to whom I say ”sorry“, but I’ll come back and visit in the summer.
Between now and mid-January, the candidates need to use all available contemporary technology to engage and debate with and before party members. While on-line voting would be nice, it is probably impractical to arrange on such short notice. There is more than enough time, however, for party members to make an informed decision by January 17.
Making a radical change to the process would also send a message to Canadians who supported other parties in 2008 or who are undecided. It would demonstrate that Liberals have finally accepted they are not the strong old institution they were once thought to be BUT that they are willing to innovate to fight back against a neo-conservative putsch, to do the extraordinary. It would be the most democratic leadership vote ever held by the party and it would serve to stem the flow of complaints from voices not heard.
There is also every reason to believe Canadians would get a better budget on January 26 if Stephen Harper knew he would be answering questions about it from a new Opposition Leader.
