#ALP is mature enough to let members elect leaders - Blog - Chris Bowen

ALP is mature enough to let members elect leaders

Posted January 18, 2012

The ALP is Australia's oldest political party and one of the oldest progressive parties in the world. It would be easy to take comfort in this longevity, to reject the need to fundamentally rethink the way our Party works to ensure the Party survives and prospers. As well as being easy, it would also be foolish. 

Each generation of senior party figures owes it to the Party to leave it stronger than we found it. In this era of declining union membership, the challenge to the ethos of volunteering, the prevalence of social media and the breakdown of inter-generational party loyalty, this means considering radical organisational reform. 

There has been no shortage of ideas and contributions. This is a good thing. An ongoing discussion about how best to organise the Party for modern times is not a sign of weakness or disunity. Rather, it should be seen as a sign of maturity: the maturity to recognise the significance of changes in society and respond to them.

The Prime Minister has suggested a trial of primaries as a way of broadening the scope of people who are involved in choosing ALP candidates. She is right to do so and I support the trial.

We also need to take the steps towards more direct party democracy taken at the ALP National Conference as a starting point, not the end point and have ongoing, respectful conversation about the structure of the Party over the medium to long term, so that the debate at the next National Conference in two years time is well grounded and not rushed.

Late last year, I said publicly that there is a good case to consider more involvement for ALP branch members in key personnel decisions, including potentially the election of ALP Leader. In my view, Caucus members aways will and should have a key role in electing the Leader. But we also need to examine the arguments for involving the broader party membership as well.

Firstly and most obviously, the Labor Party needs more members. The problem has been well identified. In 2002 there were about 50,000 people carrying an ALP card in their wallet. Now there are 38,000. We need to consider giving members more of a real say in key decisions. Few decisions are more important than the election of party leader. While not a panacea, the prospect of getting a vote in this process is likely to be more effective in encouraging party membership than any other measure.

We do also need a broader membership. The quest for party members is about more than mere numbers. We need a membership that is reflective of the broad progressive community. A party which aspires to represent the broad community must be representative of that community. As Labor's membership falls, there is a danger that our formal members become less and less reflective of the broad Labor base. We need a membership reflective of the demographics of Labor support, including strong representation from the suburbs and a viable presence representing rural and regional areas.

Re-engaging with traditional Labor supporters in the suburbs by giving them a say in the election of our leader could be vital to the future of our Party.

Some might argue that our membership will not necessarily be representative of the voting public at any given time and giving them a vote on the leadership is dangerous. This is a valid concern. However, I argue that measures to encourage membership are the best way of ensuring our membership is as broad and diverse as possible.

We should learn from the experience of our friends: it was the British Labour Parliamentary Caucus that gave Britain the disastrous leadership of Michael Foote, while the broader membership produced Tony Blair. In the US, Democratic primary voters have showed a predilection to support moderate, electorally attractive presidential candidates.

In this era of transparency, it is important that the public also demand more of our political parties. Having an open process with a series of debates between potential party leaders, for example, will have its messy moments. But if the leader of the party is able to claim the legitimacy of a broad charter and a transparent process, this will give Labor an advantage over our conservative opponents.

I have come to see this debate as vital for the Party. Of course, there are plenty of options for the Party to consider. The British Labour Party has an election with three constituencies: the party room, branch members and union members (candidates must be nominated by a critical mass of MPs). The Tory Party allows its party room to choose the top two candidates and then throws the choice over to party members. Likewise, Canada's Liberal Party elects its leader by a party convention, while the Canadian Conservatives have a system recognising the strength of the party vote in each electorate. One option for the ALP to consider would be allowing the Caucus half the votes in a leadership ballot and giving the broader membership the other half.

Some will argue that to secure Labor’s future we should be focusing on achievements and what we stand for. They are right. However, that doesn't mean that the sorts of reforms I'm talking about aren't important as well.

When Labor reforms, its strengths over the Liberals will be even greater, and they in turn will inevitably face the need to change.

Comments

View all 3 comments Hide all comments

	Ron Leese (January 18 2012, 11:32 AM) Until the ALP gets a fair go from the Australian media radio as well as newspapers we will struggle. All political correspondants should declare their party preferences.
	Sarah (January 18 2012, 2:44 PM) As a party, the ALP isn't responsible enough to have any sort of direct election of the party leader. As a party member I watched the national Conference where unions have 50% of the votes. The same union leaders who give campaign contributions to the Greens and are regularly critical of party policy. Party policy should be be shaped by direct party members - not union affiliates. Thats how you motivate the members to become involved.
	Ian Carter/venusboy1977..:) (January 18 2012, 4:04 PM) Hi Chris, happy birthday from the humble twitter warrior who read it is PJK's birthday also, and now to my off-the-cuff thoughts. Having read both yours and Troy Bramston's articles in today's Oz, may I commend you both for progressing this urgent and vital debate. I hope and pray to be wrong, but I'm deeply frightened that by the time the 2014 State Elections in SA & Tas have occured, Australia will be (for a time) a one-Conservative -party nation. Having read when I was last in Canberra, that LP are in serious contention of winning the 2012 ACT Election, I take that as a HUGE canary in the political coal mine, an alarum bell we MUST heed! I fear, sadly, that a negative public perception and imagination is endemic, and the flow of history against us. For some reason it seems the electorate writ large is determined to learn the Tony Abbott lesson, the VERY hard way. But I believe his popularity will be brief, that within a few short months his reactionary awfulness will make him as popular as flatulence in a lift. Maybe party reform could be achieved by a 'grand compromise' which reduces union power from 50% to 40% of delegates whilst simultaneously committing /pledging to implement a policy which incentivizes union membership amongst private sector employees. Don't know how exactly this could be done, but unions are an intrinsic and positive part of Australia's & the ALP's history. They, Unions are fundamental to our democracy, and essential to maintaining dignity for ordinary Australians. It is fundamentally anti-democratic and potentially tyrannical to smash them as the Conservatives, in their darkest, deepest Libertarian fantasies would wish to do. I wonder if this, or the next Labor government could or should consider an 'Accord 2.0' if you will, which would potentially dovetail with this strategy. Don't know if that's a good idea or not!? I also wonder if Tony Abbott, inspired by Bob Santamaria and the unprecedented Greens challenge to Labor's left, is trying to replay 1955, to split the left and entrench another epoch of Conservative rule! Cheers! ~IMC..:)

Add A Comment

via chrisbowen.net

Posted via email from The Left Hack