PARTY ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

The renewal process must continue, since minor changes are not enough. We are in need of a deep change. The NDP must be completely revamped. We need a democratic and autonomous party.

The following propositions are based on four fundamental principles which all seek to give power back to the members:

• democracy;
• transparency;
• the structural autonomy of the party;
• individuals' freedom of affiliation.

To implement these changes, I propose a large convention to re-found the party.

Questions of party organization and structure are not likely to gain great interest among the population. But they are still important. Questions of the party's policies and vision are not unrelated to those of structure.

Let's be clear: the following points are my proposals. These changes could not be made except after wide-ranging consultations with members followed by ratification during a Re-founding convention. The party's Constitution belongs to the members, not the leader.

The membership issue

A political party belongs to its members. Only citizens, voters, should be members of political parties. This consideration should bring changes to the current party structure, and particularly our relations with unions. We must nevertheless pursue these debates in a constructive manner by negotiating the details with all interested people and bodies.

Members and riding associations

The party's strength and stability depends on its members and on active riding associations. We must serve our strong associations better, and develop our small or nearly inexistent ridings. The federal office must revise the way it works to essentially become an organization coordinating and supporting ridings. The ridings must also be full participants in a renewed process of policy development.

Let's set clear objectives in terms of membership recruitment. For instance, we could adopt the objective that at least 0.5% of Canadians become members of the party within the next 3 years (which would mean a party membership of 150 000).

We often talk about the importance of links with civil society organizations. Yet, most of these links must exist at the local level (and not only at the level of national organizations). Close relations must exist with local unions, community organizations, cooperative firms, municipalities, etc.

Relations between the federal and provincial parties

This is a fundamental question. The NDP is the only party with a structure where the federal party is a federation of provincial parties. This means that the NDP does not really have its ³own identity² independent of the provincial parties. The federal party's structural, political and financial dependence is not very useful in our view, and quietly acts as a straightjacket on the federal party and its leadership. I therefore propose to establish the federal party as autonomous from the provincial parties, at the levels of membership, financing and policy.

Let's first take the members' perspective. This separation would have the first effect of respecting citizens' freedom of affiliation. A person may, for any number of reasons, prefer to join the federal party without joining the provincial party, and vice-versa. Meanwhile, we could establish simple mechanisms to make it easy to join both levels at once. We must establish a distinct membership, even if we certainly want to maintain fruitful contacts and a genuine partnership.

Politically speaking, the NDP's federative nature poses severe problems when the federal party refrains from condemning certain actions taken by provincial parties or governments. As well, the policies appropriate for a federal party are not always the same ones appropriate for provincial parties: let's not forget that we live in a federal system with a division of powers! The federal party should create its own policy development mechanisms. It must also have a long-term outlook. In the event of a NDP federal government, this government will necessarily take some decisions that will displease some provinces (and the contrary will be equally true): the current structure places the federal party in a flagrant conflict of interest. This must change: it's urgent.

At the organizational level, the separation will bring important changes. But if this autonomy of the federal party is accompanied by a strong mobilization and recruitment campaign, it could play in its favour. Even with a structural separation, it seems clear to us that the federal and provincial parties could continue to collaborate on an organizational level (by sharing offices, for instance). In any case, a transition period will be necessary. The federal party must also establish provincial ³sections² or ³offices,² depending on its financial and organizational capacity.

Relations with civil society

Many people and groups within the NDP are pushing for closer relations between the party and social movements and groups as well as with other civil society associations (community groups, cooperatives and social economy organizations, rights protection groups, environmental groups, the women's movement, etc.). Let's be clear: when groups like the NPI propose closer relations with various social movements, I'm entirely in agreement. We must nevertheless consider how to do this. Our relations with these groups and movements must be close and fruitful; however, they cannot take the form of formal affiliation (through a structural inclusion in the party's Constitution).

Our relations with progressive civil society associations must be based upon:

• sharing ideas, analysis and information;
• collaboration in the development of certain policies and positions;
• participation in coalitions based on shared issues ;
• participation in joint events;
• membership recruitment.

  The NDP must be receptive to the most interesting ideas emerging from civil society. In certain cases, it may even take the lead. Yet we must not seek a formal affiliation. Why?

  First, political parties, like social groups, must necessarily respect citizens' liberty of affiliation. A person may wish to join a political party without joining a social group, and vice versa. A social democratic party must have links with civil society organizations, but it also needs to maintain a certain critical distance, and vice versa. Civil society organizations must conserve all of their room to manoeuvre and their freedom to criticize the powerful. Furthermore, these groups are the first to reject participating in partisan politics... at least directly.

  Even more fundamentally, the roles of groups and social movements are different than the roles of a political party. Social movements concentrate on one (or at most several) issue(s). Interest groups represent a specific category of people. They have an advocacy role ­ they demand social and political power.

  A political party must work differently. A political party must reconcile different interests. It must promote the common good and not only be the sum of particular interests. Unlike social groups, a political party rallies majorities. A political party seeks to exercise power rather than simply influencing it.

  In sum, let's build strong yet informal links with the left-wing groups, associations and movements in civil society. We must understand that our roles are complementary but different. We can create a constructive dynamic between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary action.

  Special links with unions

  A strictly individual membership puts the current structure of union affiliation into question. However, we do not want to throw our partnership with unions out the window. We must instead review that relationship. Unions should keep their current representation within the party's decision-making bodies (Convention, Council, Executive). However, the relative weight of the unions should be proportional to the number of members that the unions recruit for the party.

  Arguments for the party's formal autonomy remain significant. For example, conflicts of interest are possible. The federal party, once in power, could make decisions that displease particular unions. At an organizational level, we must recognize the contributions unions have made to the party. Nonetheless, this partnership must make a priority of working at the local level, at the level of riding associations. Inside the party, we should maintain a strong union caucus, composed of individual members identifying as union members, and maintain the representation of unionists within the federal council and executive. The weight of the union caucus would thus be proportional to the number of individual NDP members affiliated to unions.

  Let's also look at this question from the member's perspective. The principle of ³one member one citizen² guarantees the freedom of affiliation of union members to decide whether or not to join the party. Unions ­ like other organizations ­ have to review their roles and relations with the party. This could be very positive if done in good faith. In fact, unions and other organizations could organize recruitment campaigns for the party: this would greatly increase our membership. As well, they could perhaps play their popular and political education roles a little more effectively.

  Funding the party

  The issue of funding the party has long been controversial. We must maintain a realistic approach on this question, because we cannot change everything at once. The party must defend the idea of public and citizen funding of political parties. Let's follow the examples of Québec and Manitoba in only accepting contributions from citizens, and not from organizations.

  This question nevertheless raises many issues external to the party. Given that large companies ­ notably financial institutions ­ make massive contributions to right-wing parties, it would be imprudent to accept unilateral disarmament at this time. The party should continue to accept financial contributions from organizations like unions. We must nevertheless prepare ourselves for a transition towards a strictly public and citizen financing.

  Policy Development

  The party needs to modernize its policy development process. The creation of policy development mechanisms that are coherent, complete and well integrated should be an absolute priority. The best way to reach this result is certainly not the resolutions process. The development of policy papers is the better option and should be undertaken as a long-term process that is as democratic and consensual as possible. The policy documents for the August 1999 Convention are a good example. The party should also create permanent means of creating and revising policies, especially through policy forums.

  Policy forums may be one of the best means of involving riding associations and the party's grassroots. Policy development and revision should involve a constant back-and-forth between the party's structures and leader on the one hand, and riding associations on the other. This would not only be more democratic, but would also permit more direct and ongoing grassroots involvement. Civil society organizations would also be called on to contribute directly to this process of reflection.

  Party / Caucus relations

  The NDP has always prided itself on being a democratic party where the members ­ including elected officials ­ must respect the party's policies. Yet, there have been a few cases where the caucus did not respect policies clearly adopted by the party. This has had very important negative consequences, both inside and outside the party.

  In practice, it is essential to respect both the members and bodies of the party and the elected officials and their particular role. Nevertheless, the caucus must respect the party's policies. One solution is to create mechanisms that will do as much as possible to avoid conflicts, particularly by bringing elected officials much more closely into the policy development process (in forums, for instance). We should also set up a mediation process to sort out conflicts when they occur.

  The Youth association

  Youth inside a political party are not only a force of progress and change, but are also very active party workers. We must recognize the work and involvement of youth and build on their dynamism. The NDYC is currently an incorporated association, unlike the other internal party committees. This structure should be maintained. We propose to grant youth at least 20% of positions on all party bodes (Convention, Council, Executive). This Association should be open to all youth 26 years of age or younger. As well, the Youth association should receive stable and adequate funding.

  The party's name

  A name change seems unavoidable in order to underline all these changes and to give a new wind to the party. We propose the ³Social-Democratic Party of Canada.² The name change is not an end in itself, but symbolizes the party's renewal, to the extent that a genuine renewal occurs. It should crown the re-foundation process.