Leading questions

One of the most hotly contested questions at the coming Green Party conference will be that of whether to have a leader(s). It's a question that has consistently arisen over the last few years and has very entrenched positions on both sides.

The motion in question calls for a binding ballot of the membership to once and for all settle the argument, there's even a petition for it here and Another Green World puts the other side here. A quick glance down the names on the first petition will reveal a) some silly entries and b) that signatories come from what could crudely be described as from both the left and right of the party.

The debate, in my opinion, is much more about attitudes towards elections than necessarily how progressive / reactionary a particular member is. As the petition says "we believe that the use of the term leader is a helpful and appropriate tool in helping us convince the public of the urgent need for a green society and a green world" In other words it's a tactical consideration and should be considered as such.

My natural inclination is to have some form of collective, democratically elected (and therefore accountable) body rather than invest too much prestige in one or two people. For instance I've spoken about the "leaders" of the anti-war movement here and here. However, I've got an open mind on the question and will be interested to see the arguments (and behaviour) on both sides of the debate.

As I understand it one of the main reasons for pushing the idea of (co)leader(s) is that there is a consistent confusion on the part of the press and the public over the current terms principal speakers, terms deliberately designed to promote the idea of an open and pluralist party. I don't know how significant that is and it's easy to find a scape goat for how little press minority parties get, but there may well be something in it.

There are a number of hostile amendments to the leadership motion, which as always makes me slightly tetchy. These include not bringing in the system until the Greens have three MPs, delaying the ballot to just before a possible general election, or a clause stating that someone has to have been in the party for eight or ten years before they can stand for the position, which reeks of contempt for the members of the party. There are also some useful additions and amendments, which I may or may not vote for, but clearly have a far more constructive intent.

There is an amendment, for instance, about the election for leader being every two years and in the intervening year having a vote of confidence. I'm not happy about this at all - I mean it's far more damaging for the members to vote non-confidence in their leaders than it is for them to simply select someone new. The press could portray, for instance, Derek's election as principal speaker as a sign that the Greens are moving to the left, whilst if we'd have had to no confidence Keith Taylor first they could portray the whole thing as the Greens falling apart, which we weren't. Personally I think that amendment would be a well intentioned mistake were we to pass it.

There's also an amendment calling for the introduction of Emmeline Pankhurst as an inspirational figure - surely that should be Sylvia? Emmaline supported the First World War and encouraged the giving out of white feathers to young men who weren't eager to die for the British Empire, apparently coming up with the natty slogan "intern them all". Which actually makes her the enemy and not very inspirational. I digress.

Whatever way the vote goes I hope the debate is conducted fraternally and seriously - with passion but without rancour. As I say I'm currently leaning towards opposing the motion - but as it's intent is for a ballot of the membership rather than jumping straight to have a leader then I'm very much open to the idea of a full and proper discussion in the party which perhaps ends this rather divisive topic, at least for the time being.