Why more group affiliation is bad politics....

This piece was originally an e-mail posting to an NDP related listserv rebutting arguments against the institution of a "one member one vote" (omov) system for choosing the next NDP leader. Peter Atack, the author of the post, carefully rebuts arguments made by some supporters of the New Politics Initiative (NPI, a group arguing for a new party of the left in Canada which would be the successor to the NDP) that a one person one vote system would reduce participation and accountability. Peter has a B.A. from the University of Toronto, an M.A. from Mc Master university and he is completing a Phd at Carleton University. His comments are reprinted with his permission.

The argument behind some members of the NPI opposing OMOV seems to boil down to a theory of organising on the left based on group identities.

The idea seems to be that groups will join as distinct organisations, whose leadership will then represent them at a grand coalition table that will replace the current structures of the NDP. This will supposedly prevent discrimination and the silencing of subordinate groups by giving them an explicit voice at the table. In theory it sounds laudable, like allowing for PR by competing tendencies for election to the executive, but in reality I think it leads to and reinforces dysfunctional political behaviour on the left.

This way of looking at identities is based on a series of fallacies or premises which I'd like to refute.

1) We all have one primary identity, a single issue or cause that moves us to support the NDP.

Rebuttal: we are all moved to join and continue to support the NDP for a variety of issues, that are not necessarily connected. I joined because of economic nationalism, and I'm now moved by issues of social equality and justice, as well as issues of democracy.

2) People are best represented by organisations that speak for them on their single issue, their primary identity.

Rebuttal: Because members have multifaceted concerns, no one organisation can speak for them, and no organisation can deliver the votes of all their members. For example, unions can't deliver their members votes, not because the NDP is bad on Labour issues, but because we won.Their members are now citizens with enough security and means so that the old necessity ofsolidarity for survival across a range of issues and as a class does not hold true. Security meansthat members of the working class can choose for themselves what their most salient issues are,and as citizens, which party is best capable of governing in the national interest.

3) The way to win votes and support is to win the endorsement and affiliation of identity
organisations.

Rebuttal. The problem for identity organisations is to maintain their own support base when
people have multifaceted interests and concerns. The typical strategy to do this is to whine loudly about how hard done by you are as a group (the medals of martyrdom). A party that tries to satisfy these claims, will quickly find itself the whipping boy for the identity organisation. No party, or heaven forbid government, could ever satisfy their demands, because then that would destroy the need for the organisation and the basis on which the organisations get their own supporters. Thus no party or government could ever be green enough for Greenpeace, feminist enough for NAC, nationalist enough for the Council, left enough for the socialist caucus, lest they lose theirraisson d'etre and have nothing left to complain about.

4) A broader circle of affiliated organisations will lead to a more inclusive, and less
discriminatory party.

Rebuttal: More quotas and committees would only lead to more elite accommodation between elites. Who don't represent anyone. Who would have to deliver the goods to their supporters either by dictating party policy, or frequently stomping off in high dugeon in order to claim the medals of martyrdom, or even better both.

5) The best thinking on issues belongs to the identity groups who specialize, and have direct experience in their areas.

Rebuttal: As a party that might have to actually implement this stuff, thinking beyond one's tight little identity group is a pre-condition to good policy. The real work of figuring out what to do comes when we run into others and have to come up with policies that need broad support politically, that could be practically implemented (yes it's that bane of the left: compromise and reality). But we only learn how to gain support by interacting with others beyond the identity group, when we have to sell it to them. Furthermore, the best thinking comes when our preconceptions are destabilised by interactions with outsiders who offer a different perspective. For example, environmentalists and forestry workers need to learn how to communicate, negotiate to come up with sustainable practises. Not every tree or mosquito is sacred, and skinning the planet is not a long term plan.


Back to top