#policy11 is now in the books - and I won't spend a lot of time documenting what happened since others have done that over the course of the weekend. But I'll note a couple of broad themes worth discussing based on the weekend's activites - starting with the difference between the two policy development models on display at the convention.
For the Saskatchewan NDP, the default convention policy development process has been through resolutions - with stakeholders submitting their choice of wording on a policy issue to be distributed in advance, then passed, amended or defeated by the convention. And there are certainly times when that results in passionate and well-argued debates over important public policy issues. But there are elements of the resolution process which can probably stand to be improved.
In particular, the resolution process gives rise to two conflicting goals. On the one hand, the need to address a large number of different types of resolution generated independently by dozens of different actors (and not necessarily measured against past party policy) makes it impossible debate every issue raised at convention, particularly in the plenary session where a resolution can actually become party policy.
And that issue is exacerbated by the current lack of a resolution ranking mechanism (in comparison to the one used by the federal NDP). Of course, such a mechanism comes with its own costs in the amount of panel time spent on rankings rather than substance - but at least it allows delegates to make a conscious choice whether to deal first with the biggest issues, the most contentious debates or the greatest volume of resolutions.
In contrast, the arbitrary ordering of resolutions means that there's a strong incentive to let resolutions pass without discussion in order to get through the list. And that's what happened with a substantial percentage of the resolutions dealt with this weekend.
At the same time, the resolution system also leads to debates over minor wording issues and other matters which don't go to the substance of party policy. Which is problematic when a convention is supposed to serve as the primary means of determining the will of a party's members for the purpose of developing policy positions.
At #policy11, however, that resolution process was contrasted against a discussion process based on the policy review report. There, sessions were based entirely on a desire to gather input to fill in any gaps in the existing policy document, with every participant having a chance to speak to the issues raised (albeit at a limited number of the groups set up for review). And the result was far more immediate collaboration and group idea development than normally surfaces from the resolution process.
Now, there's one obvious problem with the policy review process on its own, as it doesn't generate a finalized and approved version of the sense of the convention on matters discussed. In effect, the policy review sessions at #policy11 served as an excellent example of group brainstorming and idea development, but left some room for improvement in terms of setting binding party policy.
That said, I'm not sure that can't be fixed through a couple of key steps.
First, there's the potential to develop an ongoing policy manual along the lines developed by the federal party - in contrast to the 2011 review which was expressly oriented toward this year's election alone. That ongoing document would provide the base for discussion at convention, as well as serving as the public face of a party's priorities once the convention is over.
But once a policy manual is in place, it may be worth opening up the amendment process to allow for proposed edits to be sent in not only by constituency associations and party sections, but also through individual input both before and at a convention. Those ideas can then be distilled by a review committee at the convention to be made subject to panel review (including the ability to prioritize what edits are seen as most important), then voting in a plenary session.
That process would have a couple of potential downsides: it risks the possibility that a committee edit might not capture the exact intention of an individual or stakeholder who raises an idea (though that can seemingly be addressed in panel), and it raises the danger that issues might be raised at convention which weren't foreseen by delegates beforehand. But on the balance, I'd think those concerns would result in less of a limitation on the ability of participants to meaningfully shape policy than the current rules around submitting and debating resolutions. And that can only help to reinforce the NDP's reputation for giving the greatest possible voice to its members in defining the party's direction.
[Edit: fixed typo.]
No comments:
Post a Comment