XML Feeds
womov and the YLC conundrum
I'm relatively new to the whole partisan shtick. I joined the NLYL in Winter '08, and while I have been following politics for a long time, I never joined the NS Liberals back home, either. There are some down sides to this, primarily my lack of contacts within the party (I make up for it by wearing a killer hat.) The flip side, of course, is that there are times I am thankful to be free from the infighting, the drama, and the endless bickering that dominates the internal party politics.
I've been trying to keep track of the WOMOV blogging that's been taking place in the last couple of days, and aside from giving me a distraction from finals, it's given me an interesting insight into the party.
There are good arguments on both sides, and there are a number of duds (and complete pricks) as well. Being a Young Liberal, I obviously have a bit of a bias here, because I want to see the YLC strong and well represented, but I'm not convinced the 25% quota is the way to go.
Before I have Young Liberals jumping down my throat, here's my thoughts.
Do we need a quota to maintain a strong organization, with our traditional emphasis on pushing progressive policy (alliteration, whoo)? Why do we need a quota to make sure Young Liberals are heard? Dammit, why can't we just continue to be loud, ebullient, and vociferous? An artificial quota makes it seem like we need the help in pushing the senior party, and that isn't the case at all. Then again, perhaps I'm a tad naïve from having spent the majority of my life outside of party politics.
If we begin instituting quotas, where does it end? I've read some impassioned arguments against this slippery slope business, but I'm not convinced. Why not 50% female? Or a quota for Aboriginal Liberals? Why do the YLC need special protection?
Most importantly, why would we derail WOMOV if the amendment doesn't pass? I'm a bit disappointed to learn this has descended into a bit of a face-off between Sam Lavoie and John Lennard- I've not met either of these fine chaps, but I've heard good things about both. To me, OMOV is the most important step towards revitalizing the party right now, and to essentially hold the party hostage by saying if the amendment fails, so does OMOV, that sends the wrong message. Grow the membership, fund the Campus Clubs, and do all that wonderful stuff- before we get to the point of instituting quotas to artificially inflate our influence.
On the other hand, I've read a few comments along the lines of: "oh, those Young Liberals, they need to grow up and be mature! To be blunt, stick it out your ass. This isn't about maturity, about "those damned whining Young Liberals," and to castigate members of your own party for fighting what they believe in is asinine and counterproductive to the goals of the entire bloody convention. That's like chucking a gas can on the bonfire, telling a Young Liberal to grow up. It's stupid, and we should be better than that.
I'm hoping this gets a few comments, because I'd love to hear more about it all. Like I said, I'm new to the game, and I want to go into this with as few predilection and biases as possible. We're all on the same damn team here, folks, and the more we fight, the less united we are, the less of a chance we have at taking back Canada. This isn't the time to create artificial divisions between us, and it isn't the time to belittle the contributions of one group or another.
If the amendment passes, I think we risk some disenchantment from the senior party, and that's not going to help when we try to get policy passed. I also think, many arguments to the contrary, that we do indeed risk treading down the slippery slope. WOMOV needs to pass, regardless of whether or not we get our 25% cut, and that's what we should be focusing on. I understand the desire for the amendment, I understand the arguments behind it, and I'm not convinced- but we can't stand in the way of WOMOV.
PermalinkTrackback address for this post
6 comments
The problem with that argument is that without some protection and a guaranteed voice within party matters, all we will be is loud, with no power to back it up. Right now Young Liberals are effective because they make up 30% of delegates at conventions. With WOMOV this would fall to anywhere between 8 and 18 percent depending on whose numbers you want to believe.
Any influence the YLC currently has on the party will be obliterated to the benefit of more senior Liberals.
The party agrees that giving some underrepresented groups in OMOV is a good thing. That's why they are proposing to weight by riding. To give an added voice to rural and smaller riding associations who would otherwise be basically silenced by the rest of the party in stronger areas. Young Liberals are only asking that we get the same treatment. In 2006, a majority of delegates agreed that we deserve it, when the same amendment was proposed.
I disagree that the only reason Young Liberals are effective it because of our numbers at convention- naïveté, perhaps, on my part. I'd like to think we get things done because we push good ideas, and we push them hard, not because we have 30% of delegates.
I think my main opposition lies with the idea that without the amendment, Young Liberals shouldn't accept OMOV at all- warts and all, it's the right move to make.
We're voting on a weighted OMOV, because we need to ensure regional representation to smaller ridings.
Now wouldn't all your arguments apply to that too?
Shouldn't smaller riding associations just ""grow the membership" etc. etc.
Why do we need a quota for them to be heard? Why can't they just be "loud, ebullient, and vociferous?"
Well at some point we decided that this Minority needed more representation.
Keep in mind that most ridings (loosely) have the same amount of Residents.
So a riding in Manitoba has the same amount of residents (give or take) as a riding in say, Nova Scotia. Yet their membership numbers differ quite a bit...
Now, young people in Canada don't even make up 20% of the population. (15% in 2011 if Stats Can is to be believed, 16% in 2001).
BUT, do we want them to have a strong youth voice? Do we want to create an incentive for the senior party, and for leadership camps, to ensure that youth recruitmenent is viable. And don't we want more young people involved?
It is much easier to recruit everyone else - because there are much more of them. Because they have more money, more access, there are a million reasons why.
That is why we must enshrine the role of youth.
As a party we have chosen to weigh OMOV to give regional balance. Now we must weight it once more so that Youth can have a strong voice at the table.
We are voting on Weighted OMOV. If this ammendment passes we will still be voting on Weighted OMOV. To say anything different - is a lie.
ATB,
- David Valentin
It would appear that you are one of the young Liberals who puts the Party first, and youth participation in the Party next.
I see the point you're all making, but I'm not sure we need to go so far. Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't been with the party as long, and I haven't had as many dealings with the senior party.
But there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I remain unconvinced this is the best way to protect the YLC.
As for youth being disadvantaged in terms of participation and recruitment, I completely disagree. If anything, youth are at an advantage for political activity because their time is more flexible, they frequently aren't burdened with full time jobs or families, and if they are students they have ready-made social networks.
Their only disadvantage is money, and without the delegate system that is no longer a disadvantage.
Personally, I would love to see youth become an even greater force in the Liberal Party, but quotas are not the way to do it.