| Subject: Re: The Resolution was #20 |
Author:
Mike Redmond
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:09:06 02/25/03 Tue
Author Host/IP: NoHost/209.17.158.14
In reply to:
Roger
's message, "Re: The Resolution was #20" on 11:52:49 02/25/03 Tue
Well, Roger, there may have been some who saw it that way, but the motion itself clearly can't be seen as having targetted any one individual in our party. Since it was defeated, it is somewhat of a moot point anyway.
The issue of how to balance party discipline, and loyalty to the party's aims and principles, remains an open one, however. Our party has a democratic, member-driven policy process. Any leader of our party, and any candidate running under our party banner, has an obligation to support those policies, as defined by the members.
The conflict arises when there are mebers who wish to change party policy, and vigourously oppose an aspect of our partys' platform that has been adopted by the membership. At what point does it become necessary for a candidate, for example, to set their own personal opinions aside, and support the party platform? On the other hand, since party policy is always open for review and debate by our members, clearly there has to be room, within the party policy development process, for open debate, and an opportunity to attempt to shape policy and, in appropriate cases to change it.
The boundaries on policy are not clear. The issue is clearer when we speak of basic prinicples. To take an extreme example, a party member cannot, for example, claim to support the principles of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada while at the same time advocate the violent overthrow of Canada's democratic government. No doubt less extreme examples will come to mind.
In my case, I am willing to take people at their word, and, if they put themselves forward as candidates to lead our party, or seek to be candidates for our party in the next election, I assume they are, in good faith, going to support the platform of our party as determined by its members.
Those who fall outside the norm, like Brian Pallister, are really not a significant enough issue to start making hard and fast rules about. I think the best solution for them is to simply give them the inattention they deserve.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 