Diversity of irresponsibilities

There is no instance of groenlinks that does not need reform and improvement. That we know for sure. We also know that some attempts at change are more successful than others. So it is reasonable to expect that now and then people force the rules, whatever they might be. And sure, this is what happened few days ago. A undercover dissident In Noord Holland considered that preventing Herman Meijer from being senator was more important than Groenlinks having five senators. And at the same time, the three members of Zuid Holland choose, in my opinion also to prevent senator Herman, to support Jan Laurier.

In different levels, both actions are irresponsible. Of course, those four members of groenlinks have all possible rights to want to prevent another member of groenlinks to become a senate member. But the four persons broke -at least- the internal rules of groenlinks. And besides the rules discussion, I think it is irresponsible to act outside the congress, which in principle is the place in which any action against one or another candidate should have taken place. Actually, I think it is pretty silly to act after the congress. Before, and along, you get quite some chances to influence the voting. But after... when the decision is taken... feels too much like bad losers behaviour.

Now, I have a weakness for the Zuid Holland people. Even if their argument is very weak, it is still an argument given by persons to whom we can still talk. And it did not cost political weight to the party. So I would call them, at least up to today, mild irresponsibles. Mild because even if we can not change their vote, we can discuss it, and they are there, open to evaluation by the party.

I have less of a weakness for the secret Noord Hollander. His, or her, action costs a lot to our party. One seat, 20% of our political capital, is far too much to justify a personal political vendetta, at least in my opinion. And even worse, he or she remains hidden. So it is not even the case as with the Zuid Hollanders. I consider this secret agent quite irresponsible.

But enough for the dissenters. Lets talk a bit about the other side. The side that in my eyes is also quite irresponsible.

In first place I wonder about Harry Borghouts. Was it really needed to tell the public that the null vote was not only null, but also on purpose? Did this not give the secret agent all what he/she wanted?

In second place, I wonder about the people that calls right away for a royament. It seems to me that they did not learn anything from the experience of Sam Pormes vs Herman Meijer. A royament is not something that is called just like that. It can be taken back, it cost time, commissions, discussions, grief... And it has a long tail of consequences. Actually I am convinced that the four votes that we are talking about now are greatly influenced by that flawed attempt to kick Sam Pormes out of the party.

So that is why I consider pretty irresponsible today to start calling for royaments. Because punishment is expensive, and some times it kicks back. So... why should we be talking about punishment so fast?

To close these lines, consider this: No matter what is your opinion on these four votes, they are just another indication that we have a party that has serious internal dissent. To punish the people that make this obvious might be cathartic, but ultimately useless. A party that stays together under the fear of breaking rules is not interesting. And a party with un-public political operators neither. Today both sides of groenlinks accuse the other of being un-open. It would be time to look at our own eyes, that have enough own planks of wood... instead of keep on wailing about the specks of sawdust that are in other's...