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.