Constitutional Commission – Towards September and November Conferences
The debate around the working draft has gone on for a few weeks now and produced some useful ideas and points.
Firstly, thank you for all the kind words and positive comments on the draft. As you will appreciate drawing it up as convenors was a difficult and time consuming task and the issues involved are often technical and controversial. Be assured of our commitment to this open, democratic and respectful way of working moving forward.
BUT ABOVE ALL WE THANK THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE COME UP WITH POSITIVE, ACTUAL, CONCRETE SUGGESTIONS AS TO WORDING AND FORM. This is the stuff constitutions are made of.
Secondly we wish to clarify the question of decision making prior to the November founding conference which has been raised by some participants of this commission.
While our ideal would be to reach a clear and total consensus this is not going to happen and we have therefore to consider how best to fulfil our remit.
Our task is to ensure that that the founding members in November have a clear choice over the internal constitution in the form of alternative draft constitutions that they can vote on.
We do not intend to organise any form of on-line voting on any specific sections of any of the drafts up for discussion because that would be fundamentally undemocratic – we (and you) are a small group of volunteers charged with identifying possible constitutional models and principles and then presenting them for discussion and to be voted on. We have no greater mandate or more representative legitimacy than any other supporter of LU because we have put our names forward to be members of a commission
Moreover, not only would the votes mean little in democratic terms, the whole process will become bogged down in complexity over what people are actually voting on.
We would argue that the more straightforward approach we have adopted is the most realistic and has actually led to the creation of at least one clear, coherent draft which appears, in essentials, to command support. (although of course some will oppose it and much still remains to be done).
Therefore we have identified the following procedure that should allow us to move forward to the November Conference and this is set out below. If you can see any major flaws in this or suggest a better way that does not involve on-line voting in forums etc please say:
MOVING FORWARD TO THE SEPTEMBER CONFERENCE
1. As fresh voices and people are still joining the debate we feel that it would premature to end the discussion of Working Document 3 on the website and that this should continue until the end of August so as to allow the maximum open participation.
2. We will then incorporate as many of these suggestions as possible (without gutting the internal coherence of the document or contradicting the essential principles that guide it) into Constitutional Working Draft 4 document . This will be circulated to branches, posted on the website and will be up for discussion at the September conference.
3. In the meantime if anyone wishes to propose an alternative draft constitution we will post this as a separate thread so people can consider it fully . These should be complete constitutions and not just fragments or sections of one.
5. On September 28th we will get a chance to meet and discuss in Manchester to consider the possible alternatives that have emerged. As convenors we will ensure that the session will be conducted in such a way that all alternatives will get equal consideration and time and the debate is respectful, positive and focussed on the task at hand. Please note – no formal votes will be taken at this conference but we will be considering all the controversial issues and taking indicative votes on them, as appropriate
MOVING FORWARD TO THE NOVEMBER CONFERENCE
6. Following the September conference the convenors will incorporate any changes arising into Working Draft 4 and the subsequent ‘Final Draft Constitution’ will reposted on the website and circulated to branches.
7. Between 14th October and 14th November branches (and platforms) may propose amendments. They may also propose a completely different constitution altogether. It is likely that some form of compositing process will be required after 14 November as this is only a one day conference.
8. The November Conference will consider, debate and vote on the various proposals and amendments in the normal way. Please note: as the AIMS section of the constitution is clearly very controversial, going to the heart of what kind of organisation LU should be, it is very likely this will be considered separately from the remaining parts of the constitution dealing with rules, structures etc.
Hope this seems sensible.
All the best
Richard Murgatroyd and James Youd
Convenors
9 comments
9 responses to “Constitutional Commission – Towards September and November Conferences”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
Saturday 30th November: National March for Palestine
End the Genocide – Stop Arming Israel
Hands Off Lebanon – Don’t Attack Iran
Assemble 12 noon – central London
More details here
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
As I said, I’m happy with the rules section and some of the Aims section, but I disagree with:
– much of the Aims section particularly the first clause (for reasons already stated)
– the arrangement whereby the convenors are also the authors of the document being debated (like the chairperson who uses the powers of the chair to make his own points), while berating other participants in sententious terms (polemical, non-concrete etc. etc.)
– the failure to check for consensus (using any reasonable means) at reasonable periods during the discussion
– the conjecture that the document “commands support” – it’s not reasonably proven
– the suggestion that those who disagree with things can come up with their own entire constitution (very difficult to come up with and for us all to try/process another constitution tome by the conference target)
– the “given” that all suggestions are welcome except for any about voting – you’ve decided.
You should make efforts to identify points of contention, to see how those contentions are supported/can be resolved in the group and ultimately adopt solutions which are accepted by a majority of the group. Not doing so would be anti-democratic in practice whatever is preached (“to above all promote grass roots democracy in the understanding that fundamental and radical change can only come with the support and active involvement of the majority …”
ATB, GedC
The main issue I have is the apparently unilateral ruling out of any form of online democracy.
While you’ve categorically stated that it’s a “fundamentally undemocratic” mode of organising, I don’t think the case for that has been made.
What are you basing this on? On what grounds do you believe that the September conference will be more representative of LU as a whole then an online voting system would be? Which previous experiments in this area have you looked at and what do you believe are the flaws that make those unworkable?
All that said, I don’t think we’re ready to move to an online voting system at the moment, on technical grounds. (And I don’t necessarily expect the conveners of the constitutional commission to be the ones to tackle the technical issues- it’s out of your remit and potentially your field of expertise).
But, if this is going to be ruled out as a principle, I absolutely think we need the opportunity to debate this more fully.
I do agree Hoom, but just to be clear, my point relates to this policy commission only and its participants: we should know we agree before we take, whatever we take, to the wider organisation. Otherwise what was the point of sub-dividing the whole org into policy commissions in the first place.
We have good enough means to measure consensus and disagreement in this small group.
ATB, Gerry
I’m afraid my strong impression of the “Policy Commissions Process” so far is that it has been treated with complete and utter disinterest by the overwhelming majority of Left Unity supporters. I don’t think that’s a good thing at all – but it is the reality. I think the Constitution Policy Commission convenors have done as good a job as could be done to draw up a credible Aims and Constitution Statement, given the extraordinary, unbridgeable, political/philosophical range of views in evidence. Some of the most active contributors would definitely be advised to have a go at their own version – so utterly different from the mainstream opinion is their desired “take”.
The Constitutional Policy Commission has undoubtedly been the best organised and best contributed to by far – but as an entirely self selected grouping, in common with the (remarkably few) opinions so far contributed to the other Policy Commissions on the site, the “political bee in the bonnet” brigade have been far too much in evidence to give the process any credibility at all as a means to establish core Left Unity principles and policy. I doubt that most of the contributors to these Policy Commissions are even subs paying members – and there is no way to know either way. Some regular contributors to the Policy Commissions are definitely not even socialists of any kind !
The process of establishing Left Unity policy right across the board will have to await the formal establishment of a membership based Party. Only subs paying members have any credible right to vote on our policy options. At present that simply isn’t technically possible. In the future though, with an established subs paying membership I think we MUST engage in all-member e-voting processes . Periodic conferences to make decisions are an unwieldy and 19th century way to operate a democratic party in the era of the internet.
Agreed John.
It does strike me that the practicalities of us agreeing on a draft to send out do hinge somewhat on the interpretation of our convenors (who are doing an excellent job) but there could be a better/more inclusive way? What i’m thinking is that we could combine the policy conference (videoed, and posted here to ensure everyone is party to the discussions) with an attempt at online voting that could test out some of these online democracy ideas?
I’m in communication with a web developer from UK Uncut who is developing a simple online democracy tool that may be usable by the time of the conference (http://liquidocracy.com/). Currently it allows for delegation and discussion – if it were to extend to ranked voting options/STV and a ‘nomination of amendments’ process (which I understand is do-able) would people be interested in giving it a go for the post-conference consolidation process? We don’t want it to drag on but could put a deadline of say a week on it. (and we should be in a position to limit it to subs-paying founding members if we thought this appropriate)
We would need contact details of all those involved in the commission so everyone is aware of what is going on rather than just posting it on here though.
I’m not sure that we have time to implement a working online voting system in that timescale. As you say, this is going to need testing. I think it’s better for us to make sure that it’s working right then it is for it to be brought in as soon as possible.
I do think, however, that this needs to start being seriously looked at now. I think we’re going to have to keep our eye on this, or it’s going to be pushed to one side.
We do also need to work out how to incorporate this with a non online system for those who aren’t that comfortable with using the net for this. It’s my view they’re a minority, but they do need catering for.
Hi all
Thanks all.
Gerry – you are right, both James and myself have had a big part in drafting/selecting and I accept that that there is a big subjective element. I’m sorry to hear that you feel so negatively about the role we have played. However, I can only assure you that we are doing our best to take on board many often contradictory suggestions and, crucially we HAVE to produce a draft of a complete constitution that people can consider, amend and vote for. Indeed there are quite a few bits of drafts we have presented that I and James are not personally totally happy with but judge are relevant and command some support from the contributions made on the commission, comments on other parts of the website relevant to the constitution and at NCG meetings
Happily Sean Thompson will be presenting his alternative draft constitution based on the SSP model so there should be a choice of at least two. I would urge everyone to do the same if they have a different vision. We will be posting this asap.
We also will be drawing up a list of all controversial issues – this will form the basis of the discussion at the September meeting and as soon as I get chance I’ll write up a list – obviously anyone will be able to add onto this
Regarding on-line voting – Hope we haven’t given the impression that we are against on-line voting system, as you know this has specifically been written in as an important part of the draft constitution, including agenda setting, elections etc. So there should be no question of this being pushed to one side.
However, for all the reasons John, Guy and Hoom have said we concluded – after a lot of thought – that we couldn’t realistically use them for this exercise. That said, if anyone has some really practical solutions to do this and the technical expertise (I don’t) and time (I don’t as well) to organise this that would be great. My perspective is that any form of dialogue and debate is good and necessary but we can only work within the current situation/framework. Please email myself and James if you have a credible plan to implement this and are willing to put it into practice.
I’m writing this on my lunchbreak but as soon as I get a chance I will draft a list of all the main areas of contention as Gerry suggests – please bear with me though as I have kids, work, union responsibilities, active in community campaigns plus hope to have a life outside of politics so I can’t guarantee doing it immediately.
Best
Richard
Co-convenor
I don’t want to appear picky Richard, but my draft constitution isn’t ‘based on the SSP model’. While it does contain a number of clauses based on some in the SSP constitution (when it comes to stuff like constitutional clauses, which have been drafted and used hundreds of times before, I think that there is a lot to be said for theft), as well as stuff that has just come out of my own head, much more of it is in fact based on the working draft 3 produced by you and James. Credit where credit’s due and all that.
Can I propose that it would be a good idea to set up a subcommittee to look at online democracy? I don’t want to exclude anybody, but I’m aware that these kind of discussions can get quite ‘techie’ which obviously isn’t for everyone.