Being active in the dutch green-left party Groenlinks... what's that?

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Getting older

and seeing the big names dissapear: Dick, Herbert, Heinlein, Asimov... at least Bradbury is still around. But no more Vonnegut.

so it goes

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Manifesting over the manifesto: own positions

So far I have tried to grapple with some of the arguments in the table of planeetgroenlinks. Now is due time to throw in the table my own ones. Probably too late, since with so many commentary many of the inhabitants are tired of the discussion. But vooruit!

I want to make three points here. Not surprisingly about the course, imago and culture of the current groenlinks. Each point is easy to resume in one sentence each, so here it is:

1)The course of groenlinks should be more liberal in some aspects, and less in others. To call the current course too liberal (or right wing or any other synonym) is just fool.
2)The image of groenlinks do need to include other groups, without excluding the group already represented.
3)The culture of groenlinks must be more open, if we want to grow as a party, but more openness call as well for more responsibility.

Nothing shocking, so maybe you would stop reading right now. But perhaps the argumentation is shocking? read on!

1) A big deal of the ideological discussion inside groenlinks revolves around the question “are we becoming too liberal?” In my eyes, almost a non-question. To start with, there is no such a thing as a liberal manifesto, which can be used as a measuring device. What does exist is lots of different issues to decide to be more liberal, or not. Same for groenlinks: inside our current pool of ideas we find some that need liberalization, and some that need some dose of “estatification”. Two examples: the mantra that more flexible labour market improve the circumstances of excluded is a classical idea that has received lots of counter-evidence along time. To name only one, in the report of the arbeidsinspectie on labour mobility and discrimination (2004) comes the clear result that allochtonen are far more flexible in their jobs than autochtonen. And still, they remain with higher rates of unemployment. This is not to be solved giving more flexibility.

A different standpoint in which we could use more liberalism is in our migration standpoints. We still talk about controlled migration, or labour migration only if it is in the advantage of the netherlands. But I still remember a debate organized by the wetenschapelijk bureau from the VVD, in which it was argued for a world without borders, as the ultimate liberal goal. I certainly concur, I'll be happy to have the liberalization of our migration standpoints.

So... shall we stop using big and heavily charged words and get down to the real issues?

2) In the same wibe, lots is being discussed about our “elitarianism”. A lot of warm air, in my humble opinion. What matters here is that we must become more diverse. I have nothing against having some very elitarian party members... if we have some very egalitarian members as well. So at the side of a deep analyst of political nuances we must also have some black and white activist, a la greenpeace (or at least a la greenpeace in the seventies). In my eyes the challenge of groenlinks is not to abandon the elite and welcome the people, but keeping the elite and the people in discussion. Actually, if my memory still works, that was pretty much the gramscian version of democratic centralism. Think in something like “democratic multicultural centralism” and consider culture not only as a ethnic thing, but also a socio-economically determined phenomenon.

3) Many people that ask for mayor involvement in the decision process today is simply not capable to keep up, if they would be given the chance. As vz from one workgroup, starter of another and member of yet another, I would love to see the role of workgroups increased inside the structure of the party. I was strongly against the last reform of statuten, in which workgroups were deprived from the possibility of offering not-asked advice. But hey, beware of what you ask for... because you can get it! This is an issue in which we criticasters should be less populists. To give an example, the Kleurrijk Platform sees a change of members that rounds 75% every year. The people that stays around is very scarce. So imagine that such a club would be -all of a sudden- in charge of the multicultural positions of groenlinks. In a word: a nightmare. And not only workgroups, also the regios. It sounds very nice (in the partijraad, for example) to talk in favor of the regios and against the randstad. But should a local activist coordinate international policy (you guess what my answer is here)

So yes, I do think that the kader should take more responsibility in the decision making of our party. Sure thing. But is the kader aware that this would imply far more commitment than the existing one? Less time to hang around and more time reading policy pieces? Far more efficient workgroups meetings? How many members of workgroups would remain as members if the answer “sorry, I did not have time for ...” would not be acceptable?

Rejoinder, then. Why did I not sign the kritiek manifest, and still... why I consider it a very important piece

So yes, I have been bothered by very un-critical meetings -or congresses- of groenlinks. I had had the feeling of being part of an applause machine, now and then. But who's responsibility that is? Isn't it mine as well? It is. I missed, perhaps first of all, a strong auto-criticism in the spirit of the kritiek manifest. In second place I miss a broader call for diversity. My answer to elitarianism is not less of it, is more populism as well. Both are needed. And last of all, but perhaps more important than all, I do not consider useful a full attack of the liberalization of groenlinks. I rather argue for more liberalization in some issues, and less in others. These three reasons, when balanced and measured, make me not sign. But hey! If this manifest would not have been written, with a sustained effort from Leo and Paulus and others... we would not be discussing these issues. I might not agree with their tone, or their emphasizes... but I greatly thanks their input. Without this group of indians we would not be about to sit in powpow... and that is very needed in groenlinks now!

Friday, April 06, 2007

On the manifest: is it a minority opinion? (3)

Well, this third comment closes my comments on the comments on the manifest. (notice that english is not my mother tongue: there got to be better ways to say that). After, I'll be able to write my own opinion on the kritiek manifesto. But now, is this the product of a sour minority inside groenlinks?

Actually, for all what it matters, they might be a minority in groenlinks. Or not. We will never know. What is a fact is that the 250 people that ended up signing the text are bothered and are a bunch. I have seen congresses with more or less the same people in the hall. What I understand as the real good thing that this manifest is, is the (very) strong signal that it gives. To dismiss it as the product of a club, or a minority club, or a minority bothering club, is to be blind.

The last post of Kathalijne is a good example of the point that I want to make here. She refers (rightly so) to the Europa werkgroep as an example of a groenlinks instance in which party members are well involved in the decision making. But hey, the europa werkgroep, with few others, are exceptions. If you make the rounds of the landelijke werkgroepen of groenlinks you will hear very many different things, but you will also hear a undertone of dissatisfaction. In one way or another the life of groenlinks has created a feeling of exclusion in quite some of our members. And accordingly, those members kick back now and then. Many of the bizarre decisions of the partijraad, or the congress, are due to a pure and simple feeling of... revenge. Of impotence against “the powers that be”, which apparently take decisions without involving the achterbaan.

Even Christian Jongeneel, one of the more critical persons regarding the manifesto wrote “Het zou fijn zijn als GroenLinks weer de sfeer terug kon vinden van de Kosovo-discussie”. So yes, there was another sphere that is to be regained. To quote again: “toen er uiterst fundamenteel van mening verschild werd - veel dieper dan nu - maar het integere imago van de partij juist een grote impuls kreeg vanwege de waardigheid waarmee de meesten zich uitten.”

So the point, at least for me, is not that the writers and supporters of the manifesto are a minority. Or a majority for all what matters. Irrelevant. What matters is that somewhere along the line they changed from disagreeing people to upset people. And that is a problem that we all have to solve. So let's not shoot the messenger, but see if we can do something with the message. Even if we don't like the messenger.

And about the message... this GL-ogger goes to bed, so it will be tomorrow...

Thursday, April 05, 2007

On the manifest: A debate party might be a divided party. Nou en? (2)

One of the concerns of the persons that criticize going to the media is that the image that groenlinks gives outside is the one of a spliced party. Accordingly it would be better to keep our differences inside the walls of our meeting rooms, and not loose votes showing that we actually disagree.

Well, I think that this is a figment of the imagination. The fact is that we are a spliced party. We do have differences of opinion, now and then strong differences of opinion. Try to hide this differences is not only hypocritical, but impossible. And again, using the same argument that we use to support allochtoon participation, the diversity of opinions is a plus, not a minus. Nothing to hide, but something to be proud of.

The thing here is that people that keep on hanging to their ideas, even after the congress voted against them, are seen as bad losers. But why? Actually that is what we all do, since groenlinks is always defeated in elections, and we keep on trying. Can we really and sincerely blame and consider wrong the people that is not convinced by the course of groenlinks today? Should they shut up for a while?

My answer is: not at all. All the contrary. Because the mere existence of other currents of opinion inside groenlinks guarantee that we reach broader segments of the population. Which is a good thing, not because they vote for us, but because that is the only way to understand more segments of the country. So to every person that tells me that Femke is too elitist, I can say “she might, but there is no problem with it, since there are others that aren't”

Actually, given that I mentioned Femke, I think that many of the upset people inside groenlinks could learn some from her. Her reaction to the manifest is: “we knew. This is a debate party” enough. Simple and wonderful.

We should not be afraid of ideological differences, as much as we are not (very) afraid of ethnic differences. After all, both the Platvoets and Halsemas of this party are working for what they think is a better party. Both are convinced that groenlinks is the place to be. So even if with very different ideas about what groenlinks should do, they are groenlinksers. As it should be. Let's (learn to) agree to disagree.

On the Manifest: the press (1)

The finally published manifest from the group “kritiek in groenlinks” got to the press. And inmediatly got to planeetgroenlinks. There is a lot written, and it is likely that some more is to be written yet. Just reading planeet the last few days, I have been wanting to react to lots of comments. But if I keep reading and thinking, I'll end up writing a whole book, and not a single post. So my strategy today is to address different issues in several short posts. The last one will be about the reason my signature is not to be found in the supporters of the manifesto. But let's go with the first issue, the press.

Several comments so far mention that go to the press is to damage groenlinks. I can imagine that you would not like to see an internal discussion raging in the newspapers... but... are there many other media? do we use them? The answer is that yes, there are other media. And no, we do not use them. One example? The manifest is online since long time ago (scroll down this blog, for example). When did groenlinksers react to it? when it hit the press, not before. So it is no surprise that whoever has something to say about groenlinks, try to get in the press first.

Mark my words, this apply to both sides of the debate. Femke and Co have been investing time in the ongoing “opposition discussions”. This exercise is precisely the sort of thing that the manifest's people criticize as lacking in groenlinks: a political leader asking feedback from the achterbaan. But I have not seen the prominent people of the kritiek group in those discussions.

And besides this pointing-with-the-finger, what is the problem of going to the press? It seems to me that actually what we are is scare of the public debate. Funnily enough, some of the ones that are against press articles, are the same ones that proudly talk about groenlinks as a open debate party. And now? Why not?

So let's close this post here. I do not like the manifest enough to have signed it... but I certainly agree with the idea to get it in the public line. Lets cook some dinner and try to write about the next argument, divisions in groenlinks.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Inbreed in groenlinks

Like in any other organization, in groenlinks there has been complaining about being dominated by an incrowd. The last expression that such a feeling had was the last partijraad, in which the commissions to drive the writing of a new beginsel programa were rejected... since everybody in there were known (I keep on wondering if the partijraad wanted new members to write the beginsel programa, but ok)

Now, in these days I also learned that compared with other dutch political parties, groenlinks has the bigger numbers of smokers. Now, read this article in the independent today:

Found: gene that means some people can't give up cigarettes
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 03 April 2007
(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2414772.ece)

And then, everything becomes clear. An expression of incrowd in certainly inbreed, which makes a population to share too many genes. If so many smokers are in groenlinks, and a gene determines your addiction, groenlinks is dominated by an incrowd. QED.

Perhaps the partijraad might ask for the new commission to be non smokers only. Or am I being too sarcastic?

Monday, April 02, 2007

Back from Brussels

Again in the train, but this time going back home, after the two day visit to the European Parliament. Worth to write a post about, since the Kleurrijk Platform invested some time thinking about the migration standpoints that were discussed, or at least mentioned, in one of the sessions that we had.

But before making those points, let's mention that visiting the european parliament is an interesting experience. Walking to the corridors of the parliamentary buildings brings very strongly the contradictions that tear apart all of us that are, in one way or another, eurofiles. On one side is the excitement of sharing space and time with people that not only doesn't need to be convinced of the values of european collaboration, but with people that is working daily in such a project. And at the other side, seeing the real way in which the parliament discusses, the declarative speeches that in the end do not mean a lot, or the throngs of persons convincing each other of their small changes in the line seventythree form the document ninety-four, remind us sharply that europa remains a bureaucratic monster. Not to mention the circus of moving a whole parliament in between two cities, but also to check the condescending tone that functionaries, or civil servants, actually, use to explain to us, plain citizens, the inner working of the beast. It's true, compromise is the unique way forward in a multinational project. But assuming that the need of compromise is enough to dismiss the concerns of europeans on the creation of a superstate, or the disappearance of national identities (not founded fears, in my opinion, but acutely present) is the same mistake that lead dutch politicians to the failure of the constitution referendum.

But Ok, faced with the two faces, I choose for one of them. It's almost a cliché for a groenlinkser, but anyway, let's say it once again: the experiment europa keeps on being a beacon in a world controlled by the disputes in between the chavez, bushes and ammadineyas of this world. The building of a democratic europa, as Rebecca Harms reminded us in very simple (and perhaps because of that more convincing) words, keeps on being the relevant challenge of our generation.

But OK. Enough campaign. The central issue that we wanted to discuss with Kathalijne and Co is the criticism that we have on the newest forms that migration policy is taken inside the european greens. Kathalijne, the right woman at the right place, has been leading the discussion inside the European Green Party, proposing the study of schemes of circular migration as central issue for the greens. The criticism that arise in the Kleurrijk Platform is on three grounds. IN first place is difficult to imagine that such ideas will succeed in the practice, after having failed in the years fifty. The core idea of circular migration is that people can come to europe, stay for a while, and come back to wherever they come from. But the experience of europe is precisely that people come, and stay. So we still do not hear an answer to the question: why these ideas will work now? What is new components they have? The other two concerns hat we have, in my own opinion, are easier to address. In principle having temporary migrants implies that deportation will show her ugly face again. In second place, temporal migrants might not have access to all the social security that precisely makes europa a special place.

Now, we did not hear clear answers to these concerns, so I suppose that the discussion is still alive. As a matter of fact we were invited to a seminar on migration in which the green fractie will discuss her position to occur the 16 of april. Then we will, again, see how further can we get the greens to argue for a more open europa.