was stepping down, he called a party advisor and asked whether he could transfer his candidacy to Don Valley West. The advisor told him to wait until the leader returned from holiday. “I said, uh uh, I am not going to wait. I am just going to do this,” Godfrey said. “I will ask your permission afterwards.… We got the hell out of Markham–Whitchurch-Stouffville, jumped over [to Don Valley West] and started signing up members,” he said. So while the other potential candidates poked around, exploring the potential of a candidacy, Godfrey and his wife were selling memberships. Enough, eventually, to deter any competition.
“We started setting up memberships while the party wasstill exploring possible candidates,” said Godfrey. “I sold enough memberships to scare off others.… I didn’t ask permission of Mr. Chrétien to run. I just said I am doing it.” Godfrey ended up getting himself elected as the MP for Don Valley West, which he represented for the next fifteen years until his retirement from politics in 2010.
CRITICISM OF THE nomination process was strikingly common among participants in the Samara exit interviews—and they were the people who had navigated it successfully. We cringe to imagine what those who were less successful might say. When it’s the winner of a race who complains about the rules of the competition, that competition itself could certainly benefit from greater scrutiny.
The nomination process should be a chance to closely explore and debate issues that are important to the community that the candidates hope to serve in Ottawa. A few MPs mentioned positive aspects of the nomination process: it was a practice round for the actual election, and it helped challenge and polish the contenders’ views. A few others pointed out that nomination races, which by their nature tend to be contested among people with similar values, allowed candidates to explore finer details of community issues and policies, exchanging ideas with each other and with local party members.
But at its worst, the nomination process is a manifestation of the negative perceptions that people tend to have of politics—an opaque, manipulative and even cruel game that turns both citizens and candidates away from the democratic process. The process can be confusing, mysterious and inconsistent. As many Canadians suspect, the inner workings aresubject to manipulation by riding associations, the national leadership of a party and local groups.
So what measures could improve things? A greater respect for the nomination process on the part of political parties, for one. More opportunities for genuine input from party local members. Fewer parachuted-in candidates. More transparency from the central party and local associations on how nominations run, and how citizens can participate. More advance notice of the contests, with clear processes, preferably outlined online for anyone to see, explaining how to become a candidate. More opportunities for new members to engage with the concerns of the party they’ve just joined. More nomination battles that are truly contested at the riding level, and fewer that are controlled by the parties’ interests. In sum, more nomination battles that resemble Monte Solberg’s, and fewer that resemble Omar Alghabra’s. Respecting the democratic component of the nomination process means recognizing that the process itself is a valuable and important way to engage citizens in the business of running their country.
A good nomination has the power to inspire. It provides a sense of investment in the successful candidate and ownership of the position he or she occupies, as Monte Solberg’s constituents were proud to have experienced. A well-run nomination battle is excellent marketing for politics itself. Few processes in politics provide such an opportunity to attract newcomers. The parties need to recognize that the opposite also holds true: nothing repels newcomers to the arena more than a
“We started setting up memberships while the party wasstill exploring possible candidates,” said Godfrey. “I sold enough memberships to scare off others.… I didn’t ask permission of Mr. Chrétien to run. I just said I am doing it.” Godfrey ended up getting himself elected as the MP for Don Valley West, which he represented for the next fifteen years until his retirement from politics in 2010.
CRITICISM OF THE nomination process was strikingly common among participants in the Samara exit interviews—and they were the people who had navigated it successfully. We cringe to imagine what those who were less successful might say. When it’s the winner of a race who complains about the rules of the competition, that competition itself could certainly benefit from greater scrutiny.
The nomination process should be a chance to closely explore and debate issues that are important to the community that the candidates hope to serve in Ottawa. A few MPs mentioned positive aspects of the nomination process: it was a practice round for the actual election, and it helped challenge and polish the contenders’ views. A few others pointed out that nomination races, which by their nature tend to be contested among people with similar values, allowed candidates to explore finer details of community issues and policies, exchanging ideas with each other and with local party members.
But at its worst, the nomination process is a manifestation of the negative perceptions that people tend to have of politics—an opaque, manipulative and even cruel game that turns both citizens and candidates away from the democratic process. The process can be confusing, mysterious and inconsistent. As many Canadians suspect, the inner workings aresubject to manipulation by riding associations, the national leadership of a party and local groups.
So what measures could improve things? A greater respect for the nomination process on the part of political parties, for one. More opportunities for genuine input from party local members. Fewer parachuted-in candidates. More transparency from the central party and local associations on how nominations run, and how citizens can participate. More advance notice of the contests, with clear processes, preferably outlined online for anyone to see, explaining how to become a candidate. More opportunities for new members to engage with the concerns of the party they’ve just joined. More nomination battles that are truly contested at the riding level, and fewer that are controlled by the parties’ interests. In sum, more nomination battles that resemble Monte Solberg’s, and fewer that resemble Omar Alghabra’s. Respecting the democratic component of the nomination process means recognizing that the process itself is a valuable and important way to engage citizens in the business of running their country.
A good nomination has the power to inspire. It provides a sense of investment in the successful candidate and ownership of the position he or she occupies, as Monte Solberg’s constituents were proud to have experienced. A well-run nomination battle is excellent marketing for politics itself. Few processes in politics provide such an opportunity to attract newcomers. The parties need to recognize that the opposite also holds true: nothing repels newcomers to the arena more than a
Similar Books
