It's all about May

The Greens are both praising and blaming their leader

by Anne Kingston on Monday, November 17, 2008 12:00am - 6 Comments

The party needs a strong pyramid structure able to raise many people to the top, says David Chernushenko, a former deputy leader who quit the party after the election. “I see a very fragile silo right now. In fact, it’s more top heavy.” A repeated refrain is that the party needs to raise the visibility of faces other than May’s. “Elizabeth can’t be everywhere,” says Jacoby-Hawkins.

A stronger organization will provide checks and balances, says one candidate: “We could have put more pressure on Elizabeth to run in a more winnable seat. We would have been able to nominate our own candidates rather than have them appointed by the party.”

The executive needs to adopt a more political, less activist approach, says Taylor, who was elected to a two-year federal council term but quit after six months. “I was attacked for bringing a business mindset,” he says. “People would say ‘You’re just not Green enough, Mark.’ I was not seeing the sort of openness to criticism, to debate and to consultation that to me was a key element of what makes the Green party far different than other parties.”

“You do get a lot of ’70s-style rhetoric at the top,” says one female candidate. “It’s the rhetoric of feminist utopias: how this is going to be a society based on sharing, caring, and co-operation. Anytime anyone questions anyone, they’re told they’re too competitive or aggressive. It doesn’t attract women but it definitely drives away some men.”

Despite the internal bickering, May remains the Greens’ best hope, says Christopher Bennett, a former council member. “She has her enemies in the party but she is the one to guide them through another election—she has the personality, she polls very well,” he says. May dismisses the notion that there’s dissent in the party, claiming her support stands at 95 per cent. She says she’s committed to the party until the next leadership convention in 2010. She’ll run for the Greens in the next by-election, wherever it is, she says, though she remains convinced that Central Nova is winnable. She remains the defiant activist. Political games don’t interest her: “I will not join in mindless partisanship because I find it absurd,” she says, adding: “I’m very uncomfortable being like the other politicians who say ‘Vote for me, vote for me’ all the time and don’t have any sense of respect for voters. Voters can make up their own minds.”

IN NEXT WEEK’S MACLEAN’S: The challenges facing the Bloc Québécois

Bookmark and Share
  • Pingback: Macleans.ca - Elizabeth May: It’s going well, I think

  • tomfaraway

    Sounds like similar conflicts are surfacing in the Canadian Green movement as have been occuring in Europe. Here the fight between the “Fundies” (activists) and “Realos” (political oriented) has at times severely hampered Green chances of success.
    In Switzerland the conflict led to a split within the Greens and the formation of a Green-Liberal Party, which is among the fastest growing parties in the country. For Canadian Greens the question may need to be if being Green naturally means politically left-wing, and where the party can have the most influence for the benefit of the environment.

  • wayne moores

    I wonder why the lazy national media never takes a hard look at Lizzie. Doesn’t anyone else wonder why she never ran in her adopted Canadian home of Cape Breton. In fact as far as I know she didn’t set foot in the place during the election. She had zero roots or possibility of winning in Central Nova. Could it be the people of Cape Breton know her and her antics all too well. Might be a story there if anyone wanted to do some digging. But that would require some work. Far to easy to write puff pieces and bland generalities about our valient crusader out to save the world. God help us!

  • A Reader

    The more I read about May, the more I am convinced that she & her self-serving 60′s activist approach will get the Green Party nowhere. For someone who is not interested in ‘political games’ she sure seems to play a lot of them. The Green Party needs to downplay the activism role & adopt more of a political air to be taken seriously; they also need to replace ‘it’s all about me’ May with a younger leader who is actually dedicated to the success of the whole party. Until then the green party will get nothing more than a passing glance & a seat in the gallery.

  • Pingback: Macleans.ca - Is that all there is?

  • Ex-pat Wayne in Saudi

    The whole “Green” strategy, leadership drama’s etc are all so irrelevant. Any single issue party is doomed to being a rump (see “CCF/NDP” as the ‘medicare’ rump). I think it’s sad that the Canadian parliament is heading the way of Italy’s pizza parliament. If the idea of any political party is to aspire to forming a government then those who run the party need to realize that it’s a major accomplishment for a “middle of the road” party to get 50% + 1 to agree with your positions; and it’s virtually impossible when you’re so far out in left field (or right field like “Reform”) that you even have trouble getting suppport from those who you consider as your idealogical family.
    Don’t get me wrong, I think that diversity of opinion and ideas is vital to progress. But so too is the need for a democratically elected government to hold a “true” majority (50% +1). With this power govenments can make strides into the future (as opposed to baby steps). With minority governments we’re doomed to crawling while our global competitors run.
    To summarize I believe that the Green’s, the NDP, the Communists, the Marijuana party and even the Rhinoceros Party would be better off (as would all Canadians) if they found a way to find representation for their ideas within a two party system (Lib/Con) then let the chips fall where they may at each election.

From Macleans