More of the same

In reporting on the Vancouver-Kingsway Lib nomination farce, the Globe and Mail reminds us that a lack of democratic accountability is once against being hardwired into the Libs' slate of candidates for the next election:

(Lib national director Steven) McKinnon said the party has told its 102 MPs to hold nomination meetings this fall and said it will not allow any challengers.

Uncontested nominations were the norm under prime minister Jean Chrétien, but not his successor Paul Martin.

Not that Martin himself deserves much credit for improvement, particularly considering his penchant for appointing candidates (like Emerson himself), not to mention his determination to push his lone leadership rival out the door. But considering how little the Libs ever accomplished on the much-staffed democratic reform front, it's all the more stunning to see the party now undoing what little internal progress was made.

Of course, there's bound to be a principled Lib willing to speak out against the new lack of accountability. But until that happens, the sole quote from anybody in the party questioning the practice (which was apparently announced this spring) is instead another attempt by a fading leadership campaign to appear relevant:

The decision by interim Liberal leader Bill Graham to allow all sitting MPs to be renominated this fall does not sit well with at least one leadership candidate, MP Joe Volpe.

"Mr. Volpe doesn't think that there should be blanket immunity for all members of Parliament -- the blank cheque that Mr. Graham gave to caucus," said Mr. Volpe's spokesman Corey Hobbs. "He feels there should be democracy at the grassroots level."

It's not clear whether the quote is a new one or simply Volpe's original response to the announcement. But it is clear that Libs hoping for a revitalized party are in for a severe disappointment. After all, the lone leadership candidate (or prominent party figure period) willing to speak up for an open nomination process is the same one proudly trying to set a new ethical standard based on questionable donations and arm-twisting (at least as long as the arm-twister sticks around). Meanwhile, the other leadership candidates have at best tepidly mused about the decision to backslide toward lesser accountability, and at worst backed it outright.

Whatever else happens before the next election, the Libs have only shown their continued contempt for democratic accountability - both through the lack of many nomination meetings, and in the process followed in those which are taking place. And that can only ensure that the Libs remain tarnished with the same perception of entitlement that earned their trip to the opposition benches in the first place.