Green Party Leader Elizabeth May might soon be faced with the dilemma of promoting party policies that conflict with her personal views. Party members are voting through an online ballot on whether to add boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel to the official policies of the Green Party. They are also voting on a resolution that would seek revocation of charitable status for the Jewish National Fund of sa国际传媒.
The voting has three possible outcomes: approval, rejection or referral to the party鈥檚 convention in August. May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, believes the third option is the most likely.
She says she is against both resolutions, although she has declined a chance to put her position on record.
In February, she abstained from voting on a motion calling for Parliament to 鈥渞eject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the state of Israel.鈥�
She said she abstained because the motion was too broad, but said: 鈥淚 want to make it very clear that the Green Party and I personally do not support the BDS movement. There is a Green party in Israel 鈥� and its view is that it would prefer that Green parties around the world do not support calls for boycotting Israel.鈥�
If the resolutions are referred to the convention, May said she would work to defeat them, but admits she has only one vote.
In sa国际传媒鈥檚 larger parties, the leaders generally call the shots, and it鈥檚 highly unlikely the party would adopt a policy opposed by the leader. But the Green Party is not top-down; one of its strengths is its grassroots philosophy.
But that philosophy could cause headaches for May. She could find herself standing in Parliament arguing for something she is against.
It highlights the dilemma that elected representatives have always faced 鈥� how to vote when personal beliefs are at odds with party policy or constituents鈥� wishes.
鈥淵our representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving, you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion,鈥� said Edmund Burke, 18th-century British MP and the man considered to be the father of modern conservatism.
That philosophy was easier to apply in the late 1700s, when the majority of the people were likely to be illiterate or at least poorly informed. They depended, with varying degrees of success, on their elected representatives to be knowledgeable and to look after their interests.
It doesn鈥檛 work so well in an age when information, accurate or otherwise, can be put into the hands of millions in a matter of minutes. It doesn鈥檛 work so well when parties insist MPs present a united front. Leaders don鈥檛 like it when MPs stray from the party line. That gives the impression there might be cracks in party unity.
The occasional backbencher can get away with voting her or his conscience, but if the leader is at odds with party doctrine, the effectiveness of both leader and party is at stake. Such a situation in an establishment party would not bode well for the leader鈥檚 political future.
But May is the Greens鈥� only MP 鈥� they need her more than she needs them. She was re-elected in 2015 with a comfortable majority 鈥� her two closest rivals in Saanich-Gulf Islands together got only 36 per cent of the vote 鈥� and her success probably has as much to do with her dedication, integrity and abilities as it does with party policies.
May has been a positive influence in Parliament. It would not be good for the country or her party if her influence were diminished because she and the party were at odds over a policy.
