“Democracy” or “Democratic”

Is the Democracy Party more about "being democratic" or about improving "democracy" for the people?

Is it a trick question? Aren’t they the same things?

I don’t believe they’re necessarily the same things at all, in the context of a political party, a business or association or, for that matter, the family unit. "Democracy" must be the goal but sometimes, in its implementation or defence, you can’t be completely "democratic".

In fact, in the beginning, I toyed with the notion of calling this party the "Democratic Party". But that name didn’t describe the purpose of the party. "Democracy Party" does.

As a new, small political party, we’re already facing terrible odds and will soon face relentless opposition and criticism from those who believe an empowered voter is a threat. Being "democratic", in the way we run our organization internally, is not necessarily going to take Canadians more quickly to the expressed goal of greater democratic freedom. We can’t afford any self-imposed roadblocks at this early stage.

Let me explain.

Several times, this little party has come quite close to merging or formally co-operating with like-minded groups. Some invitations seemed closer to take-over threats, actually.

As you know, we’re working hard to meet the requirements to register this party with Elections Canada so that we can compete in elections and get democratic reform on the campaign agenda for Canadians to "vote" on. Merging with other groups, then, has always been a serious option for more quickly achieving that registration.

But in each of the proposals, in the end I’ve been compelled to "pull back". For reasons I’ll describe, each failed effort affirmed my belief that this party, the Democracy Party of Canada, is the best vehicle to bring democratic reforms to Canadians.

Look, merging democratically minded individuals and groups together would seem like a simple sell. Lock ‘em in a room and it should be a "fait accompli".

I won’t go into the specific dates and personalities of the various proposals, but failure consistently evolved from disputes over the internal leadership and policy direction of the merged party or organization.

Here are a few of the problems we faced as we considered integration, take-over, cooperation or merging – even the exact "definition" of what it was we were doing was a major bone of contention. And you wouldn’t believe the trite debates about the "name" of the new, merged political entity.

For instance, one of the issues we encountered was when some involved in the negotiations insisted that "we can’t prove democracy is good for Canadians unless we run our Party itself, completely democratically".

Okay. That sounds reasonable. You’d kind of think it would just happen.

But it takes more than negotiating skills to hold such efforts together. Whenever groups have a goal of formally collaborating in a new, single entity – or forming an umbrella organization for the existing separate entities – egos, hidden or differing agendas, differing definitions, and the reluctance to leave behind the "security blanket" of their current projects seems unavoidable.

The debate inevitably deteriorated over how to "divvy" up the executive roles in the new organization.

Anyway, all sorts of remedies were tried – such as rotating the leadership among the participants or divvying up the territory we’d represent. While these may sound reasonable, the whole discussion of "process" and "methodology" consistently diverted us further and further from the target – the target of ensuring that Canadians had the opportunity to define their own democracy.

Then there was the great "policy debate". That’s when participants, behind closed doors, expend their energies debating policies that are dear to their hearts – policies that have only the remotest relationship to democracy. These policies might further personal agendas, but many ordinary Canadians couldn’t care less about them.

Getting past the personalities and the policies, the next hazard in any negotiation is to compromise away the essential principles for which you stand. They’re supposed to be the very reason for existing!

For example, every serious democratic reformer believes in an M.P. Recall law. But that might be the first item to be revised when the "pursuit of power" becomes the prime imperative:

Then, the power of the people to intervene on the political agenda "between" elections – that is, Direct Democracy such as referendums – might be the next priority to fall by the wayside:

You see, in both cases the new group aspires to place itself at a higher or exempt authority – simply because it has "good intentions".

True advocates for democracy need a lot more than "good intentions".

No participant in these kinds of negotiation should claim innocence or helplessness if they fail.

So what did I personally do to help achieve consensus so that we might reach the advertised goal of improving democracy for Canadians?

Well, in spite of bringing one of the more serious organizations to the table, I’ve always emphasized my willingness to defer or avoid the roles of leader, president or even candidate of the party. In spite of this, as the "founder" I’ve already had to deflect criticism that the "Democracy Party of Canada" is just the "Steve Garry Party".

To grow, you have to be willing to make sacrifices, and I feel that deferring the senior roles is a big thing to do. Besides, I know my own capabilities. People a lot smarter and more experienced are going to be needed to take this Party to where it needs to go. The people of Canada deserve nothing less.

But in response to my commitment about the senior roles in the Party, did the other parties to the discussions reciprocate, or at least pursue roles only in "acting" capacities?

We should ensure that the senior functions in the Party get filled by the best possible people, and not simply by those who are "in the room at the time" – even if they are the ones who founded the idea.

The purpose of these merger talks, after all, was to give greater "democracy" to Canadians. That’s a little bit more important than who gets to sit at the head of the table.

We shouldn’t abandon our democratic reform principles, for which Canadians are desperate, for the sake of "quick party growth". If 20 ambitious people – with watered-down, or market-driven, or politically-driven principles – can overrule 19 committed democrats, then "being bigger" or "getting there faster" isn’t worth it.

Even the largest, most-established political parties have to beware of this. You know – the issue of "instant memberships" taking over the party at their convention or candidate nominations.

Look, "democracy" is not the minimum 250 members required to register a political party – not 250, 2,500 or even 250,000, and certainly not 39 people in a small room. Democracy is the form of governing that 33 million Canadians expect to enjoy.

What sort of quorum is 39 people in a room anyway? Even pollsters wouldn’t call it a statistically valid "sample" for one of their surveys, so why would we let such a small group "define" democracy for the country? Whether 39 people in a small room, or even 39 government cabinet ministers in a big room – leaving them with the responsibility for defining democracy for all of us is dangerous.

Thirty-nine political junkies in a room together can create some useful, general guidelines – those are the things we might call "principles – but they shouldn’t presume on Canadians by locking themselves, and voters, into rigid definitions and inflexible dogma or policies.

Democracy belongs to 33 million Canadians. Its definition, maintenance and use is their responsibility – whether they partake in democratic decisions on a daily, monthly or annual basis, or once a decade or, except for general elections, never! Yes, "never", because simply having the laws on the books may be enough to make our politicians more careful.

On the other side, truly democratic leaders must essentially be "enablers" of democracy for the people.

In fact, bland, grey-suited bureaucrats who do this job well – who understand that they’re not the bosses, the people are – are far better than flashy, media-friendly "celebrities" who let the attention and bright lights go to their heads. They just distract the people from the very serious rights and responsibilities granted by democracy. They give people a lazy "out":

I’ve invested thousands of dollars and thousands of hours to chart a course for this Party to give Canadians direct democracy, if nothing else. That would be a significant political legacy for anybody.

In this early stage of its development, "focus" is what I bring to this enterprise, and I’ve had to work hard to keep it from being watered-down.

For instance, I’ve had to resist some who’ve joined this little Party who wanted to take it in a drastically different direction. They thought they could – just because, well, they "outnumbered" me. They didn’t succeed, with the result that members have quit in disgust at my inflexible – they may have even thought "undemocratic" – attitude.

I fully recognize that once the Party is registered and is "out there", Canadian voters will take it to a different, far more complex place than the single-principle Party it is now. At that time, its mechanism will be entirely democratic. But until then, keeping the Party "focussed" is essential.

In the overall scheme of power and politics in this country, the painful birth contractions of the Democracy Party of Canada haven’t even been blips on the radar screen. Nevertheless, you probably now know a little more about the kinds of things we’ve been trying to do to get the Party going.

I’ll continue to monitor any invitations to "merge" with others. I listen to every approach and offer. I don’t burn bridges.

But watering down the people’s democracy, as we propose it, by divvying up power within a new political party till all its fat cats are sated and little remains of our original democratic principles – that would be a terrible shame.

Why?