Two Leadership Votes - Post Analysis

After looking around the blogosphere in the wake of the Federal Liberal and Alberta Progressive Conservative leadership votes this past weekend, I have a few thoughts to ponder.

1) Delegate Convention versus One Member, One Vote

Having watched both play out over the last 9 months or so, I find myself thinking that I really like the Delegate Convention model still - even though it is less appealing on a "personal involvement" level.

Leadership races are, by nature, a time for renewal in a party. The "old guard" is stepping aside (even if they have a "preferred candidate" they are backing), and new leadership should be emerging.

The Liberal leadership convention was political theater on a grand scale. Even in Alberta, I don't think a single television didn't show a few minutes of coverage of the convention. People watch these things, and it's actually quite engaging to watch the parley between candidate supporters. Moments like Gerard Kennedy walking his supporters over to Dion's group and joining with them are the kind of spectacle that people can appreciate and start to see how things are unfolding.

Lastly, at the end, the concession and victory speeches are wonderful catalyst for healing the divisions. (I'm thinking here of Mr. Ignatieff's concession speech - which was positively inspired).

Compare that with the one member, one vote thing in Alberta. Early tabulation results didn't even start to trickle in before 9:00 PM - when most people are either out on the town, or winding up for the night. Hardly engaging. Most Albertans found out who the new Premier-designate was Sunday morning when they rolled out of bed. The results trickling in was painfully slow, and the coverage of the "central" location for the party to gather at was, well, spotty at best.

2. Healing The Party

I think, after this last convention, the Liberal party has successfully purged much of the rot and stain that was left from the Chretien/Martin feuds.

All of the candidates running were graceful in their acceptance of the results, and clearly were sending their people a message that whoever wins deserves everybody's respect in the party.

In contrast, because the "one member, one vote" model ultimately abstracts the candidates and their backers from one another, there is no opportunity for the party to "come together" after the votes are tallied. Yes, Mr. Morton and Mr. Dinning made nice noises after the fact, but that message has not translated into acceptance among their supporters. (See my previous entry where I took a look through the lands of Morton support yesterday)

The Alberta process has left the party highly fragmented, with people on all sides feeling put upon or otherwise disenfranchised. This leaves the new leader with the job of not only taking up the reins in the Legislature, but also with the issue of bringing the supporters of other candidates back into the fold. (This will not make Stelmach's job easy, especially with the bitterness being expressed by some Morton supporters)

3. Respect For The Parliamentary Process

Canada's governments are based upon the Westminster model at the Federal and Provincial levels.

As I've expressed before, I don't think what the Alberta PCs did respects that. In fact, the Alberta PC's have used it to grab a huge number of $5 donations for their coffers. By framing it as an "Elect The New Premier" exercise, they have sown confusion among many voters, who purchased a membership in a party they may well not support personally, just so that they could "have a voice".

This has two problems, in my view. First, it attracted a great deal of "non-party" party memberships. (Interest groups who adopted a PC membership just to throw a spanner in the works, for example) Second, and here is where I will agree with one issue that some of Morton's supporters have raised, is the fact that the "plurality of the party" decision may well in fact NOT represent the "rank and file" of party membership accurately. (Again, this will seriously complicate the healing process)

Because of the nature of a multi-party system where the leader of the "majority party" in an election becomes the "lead minister" (Premier or Prime Minister) to Her Majesty the Queen, the "turning inwards" of the Delegate cycle actually encourages discussion within the party of the merits of various directions. When the selection process is complete, the party turns back outwards and presents its "shiny new state".

In Alberta, we saw a bunch of demagogues running about trying to attract the biggest army of supporters they could. Where was the discussion? There was none. The reality is that we won't see a "renewal" of the party until Stelmach chooses to call an election.

While "one person, one vote" appears to be "more direct democracy", it overlooks the reality that our system is based on the parties coming up with their "best suit of policy" and presenting it to the voters in an election. The evolution and selection of policy and leadership within the party is a process that should be worked within the party organization. Doing otherwise ultimately weakens the party within the Westminster structures as it never really does the 'renewal and reinvent' cycle adequately.