Democracy and dissent
By Peter LaVenia
Albany, N.Y. Green Party

"However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not as a living truth."
--John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" (1859)

One of the more striking features of the debate on party direction, policy, and ideology that has been raging with unusual ferocity in the last year is how little space we provide in the national organization for educated, intelligent discussion and internal dissent. That is, there is no space in party publications, on the official party website, or in literature, for dissenting voices to be heard or for ongoing debate--we seem to wish more that the debate will disappear rather than allow for it. The party itself does not encourage historical or ideological classes that force us to confront the history of the left as a movement, and this is to our detriment.

The reasons to recognize and encourage internal political tendencies have much the same root as those of multiparty democracy: the ideas of majority factions are often incorrect, and leadership cliques have a potential to squash dissent if it is not codified. Allowing for these groupings would allow for legitimate debate on party decisions and ideology; correct political positions and actions require razor-sharp internal criticism. Interpretation of the Ten Key Values is extraordinarily subjective--what about the construction of a Green society? Are we likely to reach such a society within capitalism, or beyond it, should we endorse non-Green campaigns, should the party remain decentralized or centralize? These are extremely important and complex questions that internal tendencies should be given the possibility of discussing--indeed, internal groupings (deep Greens, socialist Greens, etc.) may have different but nevertheless crucial points to add and should be given the right to convince party members of their arguments' validity. Beyond this, such discussion will probably keep us from factionalizing and splitting, as most American left groups are wont to do.

Therefore I suggest we:

1. Recognize and create guidelines for legitimate internal tendencies based on political (and not identity caucus) differences.

2. Create a space in party publications, websites, and literature for legitimately recognized tendencies to have their views aired and discussed.

3. Foster debate and discussion amongst Greens, via courses, study groups and the like.

Recognizing internal dissent groupings as legitimate requires the drafting of rights to be written into national bylaws. Tendencies should have the right to dissent publicly with the party, as any other group within the Greens, and not be penalized for doing so. Room should be made for their meetings at conventions and other gatherings of the party. Though this might seem to show we are a divided group, it would also promote the idea that we are a diverse community.

Secondly, there should be a right to a small but legitimate section in party publications for these groups to represent their views or to answer what they see as incorrect moves by the party organizationally or politically. This is crucial, as Greens should be able to communicate with other Greens regardless of differences of opinion. Website access is also key in our age and should be allowed on the national site, or at least linked to via the national site.

Finally, the party itself should create the atmosphere for friendly, civilized debate, rather than the rancorous and ill-conceived debates that have happened in the past. There is no reason why we could not encourage study groups on various subjects like leftist history and party theory and ideology; this would arm us intellectually for the uphill struggle we face. Study groups are also places where theory meets reality--party members can apply what they discuss and learn to the situations they face in their own communities.

The real question before us is whether we see ourselves as a new society in embryo or not. If we do, then we should foster inside the party everything we would like to see a Green society create. That would make it all the more likely that Greens would implement these changes, elected or otherwise. Internal dissent is nothing new in a democratic party, but we should codify it in a way that other, successful political parties on the left have done. In that way we might see the party legitimately and in a united manner move towards the future.

Peter LaVenia is chair of the Albany, N.Y. Green Party and president of the Green Alliance (www.thegreenalliance.org).

Back to Summer 2005