Liberals just don't "get" Democracy

There is word that the Liberal Leader Stephane Dion will step down as the party's leader as early as today. This is good news for the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party was understandably gun shy about showing external divisions after the Chretien/Martin debacle a few years ago, and were very eager to show solidarity and rally behind their leader. With Dion, this was surely a case of the "Peter Principle" if there ever was one.

With Dion on his way out, perhaps as early as today, perhaps as late as this Wednesday Liberals must be salivating at the prospective of rebuilding their party, and continuing on their long and arduous "renewal" process. But this process is about to hit a massive speed bump, a speed bump named Michael Ignatieff.

Michael Ignatieff's supporters have proposed that the Liberal leadership race be accelerated, and to have the Liberal caucus choose the next leader of their party. What an affront to grass roots democracy, and the will of the Liberal Party members.

The Rae camp says that choosing a leader behind closed doors is not the right move for the Liberal party.

I never thought thought that I would agree with Bob Rae, and I certainly never thought I would hope that Bob Rae wins the Liberal leadership contest. Michael Ignatieff is just another Liberal entitled to his entitlements, he doesn't want to face the members of the party that he holds so dear, he doesn't have the courage to fight a leadership race. He simply wants to be anointed, so he will be able to assume the head of the "natural governing party of Canada". He wants his crack at being Prime Minister. I wonder if his views on the coalition will change if he wins the leadership race, assumes the leadership, and gets another chance to throw the Liberal/NDP/Bloc's ill conceived coalition in the electorates faces and assume power through outdated constitutional means instead of through the electorate.

Bob Rae at least has the idea, one vote per party member. Though his desire to push the coalition through by any and all means to assume power simply makes him as well, yet another Liberal entitled to his entitlements.

Mr. Dion appeared to be open to changing his mind about defeating Mr. Harper's government, saying that a “monumental change” on Mr. Harper's part would alter that.

That phrase angered some Liberals, who began shouting at Mr. Dion, accusing him of not going far enough, according to a caucus insider. That is when Mr. Rae approached the microphone, telling Mr. Dion that even “monumental change” was not acceptable.

Mr. Dion appeared shocked, the insider said.

So plus one for Rae's views on one member, one vote, a big minus one hundred for his desire to punish Canadians with his separatist coalition for having the audacity of voting for a party other then the Liberals. Bob Rae apparently doesn't understand how democracy is supposed to work, if the government works with the opposition parties, then it behooves the opposition parties to work with the government in a honest and fair way.

Of course I am really not sure why Rae is going to campaign so hard for the coalition, a coalition that is not popular with electorate, a coalition that is fracturing the Liberal caucus, he is simply using the coalition to galvanize his base, and act as the rallying cry for his supporters that are in the left side of the party. Or perhaps to drive home the point that the NDP and Liberals should merge and become one party. And Canadian's don't really want Rae as the leader of the Liberal party, with only 22% of Canadians supporting Rae as the Liberal leader, you really have to wonder what is going on in that once proud party. Rae could lead the Liberals to an even worse showing then Dion with his rock bottom popularity, and his fanatical desire to shove an unpopular undemocratic coalition down the throats of Canadian voters.

Hmmm, on reflection, Bob Rae for Liberal leader does indeed seem like a good idea.

Would you like renewal with that?

While I am pretty sure this has been blogged to death, I just thought I would add my two cents to this discussion.

The [Liberal] party released new rules for the leadership race on Saturday, including a large entrance fee of $90,000. During the 2006 leadership campaign, the party charged hopefuls a $50,000 entrance fee.

Also, spending by the leadership candidates will be restricted to $1.5 million each, which is far smaller than 2006's $3.4 million limit.

The price of grassroots democracy in the Liberal party is ninety thousand dollars.

This entry fee seems destined to limit the field to just the likes of Ignatieff and Rae, the only ones with the ground game and support to raise that kind of money, and run a campaign. To be honest, I am not sure how this will result in the desperately needed renewal of the Liberal party.

This will prevent a "poor" but qualified candidate from making a run at the leadership, while there are some valid arguments for this, I say it will do nothing but hurt the party in the long term. Leadership contenders shouldn't have to suffer because the party has trouble raising funds.

Liberal leadership contenders, only the elite shall apply.

A better system is to have a lower entry fee, something like fifteen thousand dollars, and instead make the entry fee to the convention something bigger, and non-refundable.

This would the leadership hopefuls to run a campaign from the start, and allow them some months to get a ground game organized before expecting to fork over a lot of cash. The contenders who fail to strike a chord with delegates, or win support can withdraw from the race prior to forking over the large amount cash required to gain entry into the convention. This would allow maximum participation from candidates but also keep the convention from turning into a circus.

The plan is still rough but I think it has merit. What do you think?