It doesn't take much browsing around the internet or reading the newspapers to learn that all political parties have their fair share of critics, nay-sayers and others either angry or dismissive about the policies and actions of those parties. This is the nature of politics, and healthy debate is an essential component of a strong democracy.

There comes a time, however, that a debate can cease to be healthy. In my experience with the Green Party, unhealthy situations can arise when an individual has a certitude about their opinions that causes them to view differing opinions with hostility and suspicion. Our rapid growth has exacerbated the problem, since the changes, new people and new ideas that come with such growth can be alarming to those used to the status quo. In some cases, an individual may start to believe that a person or group holding a different opinion, or taking an action with which they disagree, could only be doing so because they are corrupt, incompetent or because they otherwise want to do the party harm.

In practice, things are never so black and white. Every decision made by party officials is made in the context of a multitude of circumstances that need to be examined in light of how we can best achieve the stated Constitutional purpose of the party: to advance the party’s platform, policy, values and basis of unity, and to contribute to the welfare of Canada. Given the ever-changing political and organizational environment in which the party finds itself, it is impossible that all of the actions taken by the party will conform to the wishes of any given individual.

There are a number of options available to individuals who think a decision is leading the party down the wrong path. Decisions made by units of the party other than council (e.g. EDAs or Provincial Associations) can appeal to council, and any resultant decision of council that does or does not change the original decision is binding on these other units. Council decisions of any kind can be reversed or amended by future council decisions. Councillors and other elected officials can be voted out of office. And the ultimate authority for decision-making is when members are in a General Meeting; such meetings are historically held every two years. If an individual cannot convince any of these groups to correct a decision, then it is most likely that the original decision accurately reflects "the will of the members" and should stand.

At any time a member or unit of the party can appeal to the party's five-member Ombuds and Appeals Committee (OAC), who, at their discretion, may or may not agree to consider the request and make recommendations about how to correct the situation. Although OAC recommendations are not binding they carry a lot of weight in party circles.

Unfortunately, these well-defined processes are not always followed by those who have concerns. I've known party members and officials who have withdrawn or limited their volunteer work with the party due to harsh and unfair criticism of their decisions and motives. In some cases false information about these members has been published. Others have received threats of various kinds or attempts have been made to harm them in their personal or professional affairs external to the party.

Let's examine in a little more detail some different examples of how a disgruntled person can handle a decision with which they disagree. The first set of examples will examine what happens when the disgruntled individual uses improper actions because their certitude about what is right causes them to be suspicious about the motives of others:

Example 1: Let's assume the person being accused is actually corrupt or otherwise wants to hurt the party. In this case, the corrupt person being accused is unlikely to be bothered by such accusations, and will continue on as before. They may welcome the accusations, knowing that such in-fighting can only harm the party. In this case, it is likely that the situation in the party will continue to deteriorate.

Example 2: Let's assume the person being accused is not corrupt, but is incompetent to some degree. In this case, it is possible that the individual will withdraw, which may seem like a victory to the disgruntled person. However, this victory comes at a steep price. The person who withdrew may well have been simply been in the wrong position at the wrong time. In many cases such a person, if treated with respect, understands that they might be able to better help the party in a different position. But if they are forced out, it is less likely that they will be willing to do other volunteer work for the party.

Example 3: Let's assume the person is capable and the decisions they are making are actually helping the party to grow. They recognize that an effective way to contribute is to get actively involved as an elected party official or committee member. As a result, they are more involved in decision-making and face a higher likelihood of making a decision with which a disgruntled member disagrees. Having a disgruntled member try to force out such a capable volunteer is probably the worst of all worlds.

In all cases, forcing someone out using improper actions may be acceptable and desirable to the disgruntled member, but it is harmful to the party as a whole. Whether or not the person who withdraws is capable, they have a right to their opinion. Also, elected councillors have a constitutional right to make decisions on behalf of the party outside of a General Meeting. Efforts by an individual to undermine that right ultimately serve only to weaken the framework on which the party is built.

The second set of examples will examine what happens when a disgruntled individual decides to try to use due process to correct decisions with which they disagree. In the following cases we can also assume that, rather than going on the offensive, the person would use most of their time to prepare a better solution to the problem and then present this option to those officials who are authorized to correct the original decision. They may also take legitimate steps to remove or censure the person by petitioning the OAC or council, or by working to elect someone better to the position held by an elected official.

Example 4: Let's assume that the person who made the bad decision is corrupt. It is likely that they will ignore any good recommendation and the disgruntled person trying to use due process will have to go up to the next level of authority to present these recommendation. Some time will be wasted, but at some point along the way it is likely that a good recommendation will be implemented. Additional effort will likely be required to remove such an appointed or elected official using due process.

Example 5: Let's assume that the person who made the bad decision is incompetent to some degree. It is possible that the person will not implement a good recommendation, but if the disgruntled individual is capable and continues to pursue the matter in a respectful and impartial manner, it is possible that the situation can be resolved with a minimum of hard feelings and wasted time. However, since an appointed or elected official has a right to make decisions (even if others consider them bad), then the disgruntled person may need to do additional work to replace them.

Example 6: Let's assume that the person who made the decision is capable. In this case, it is likely that they are willing to listen to good recommendations on how to fix problems, and will work to get them implemented. In some cases, there will be differences of opinion between two capable people. In this case, it is entirely reasonable that the elected or appointed official be allowed to stand by their decision.

The following table summarizes the above examples. It also ranks each situation on a scale of 5 to -5, where 5 represents making a good decision agreeable to all in the first place; 0 is the status quo; and -5 means the actions taken make things worse:

It should be clear that in all cases the best solution for a disgruntled person who wants to try to correct problem is to use due process. Although I think this is generally understood in theory, I hope that examining the practical downside of trying to use other, improper methods to correct problems will reinforce the importance of due process. Sometimes due process takes time and this can be frustrating. However, it is essential that members of the party treat others within and without of the party with respect, if we hope to rise above the mudslinging and partisanship that characterizes much of Canada's political discourse.

In practice, there will continue to be some individuals whose suspicions will cause them to attack and accuse. My recommendation to those who find themselves on the receiving end or are otherwise upset by such actions is to try to rise above it. Over time, ordinary members will see that the person doing the attacking is being unfair and harmful, and their influence will wane. In my experience, you will also earn the respect of those who are making positive contributions if are you able to handle such situations gracefully.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.