The Green Party: A Realistic
Hope for Change?
An Interview with Andy Shadrack, Green Party candidate
On June 2 [1997], voters once again will determine the
governing party in Canada. It is unlikely that any radical change
will occur, at least in regard to environmental matters. But there
is a Green Party voicing ecological concerns for citizens across the
country. In some electoral districts, a growing Green presence is
having significant impact on the debates. Perhaps in the near future,
Green values will find their way into the policies of the governing
parties across North America. If not...well, let's focus, for now,
on a positive vision for change.
Andy Shadrack, who teaches political science at Selkirk
College, represents the electoral district of Nelson-Creston in the
mountainous and rural southeast of the province. As many alternative-oriented
people live in this area, the Green vote in recent elections has been
among the highest in North America.
Election Time:
What are your realistic expectations of voter support for Green Party
candidates in the federal election?
A.S.:
The 79 Green Party
candidates in the 1993 federal election obtained from as low as .5%
to as high as 2.3%. Here in the West Kootenay, in Nelson-Creston,
we pushed that up to 11.2% and in a number of constituencies on Vancouver
Island and in Vancouver we exceeded 4% in the 1996 BC election. The
Green party as a whole achieved 30,000 votes, up from 12,000 in 1991...reaching
2%. I do not see it as unrealistic for the vote in the West Kootenay
to rise to 15%.
In view of the relatively low support from voters thus far, does
the Green Party have other principal objectives in running election
campaigns?
A.S.:
Many Greens run in
the election in a purely educational role. There is, in my opinion,
an emerging difference between "reallo" and "fundi"
over what platforms should contain. I believe it is possible for Greens
to elect someone under the current electoral system by explaining
how Greens would address day to day problems. Other Greens see our
role as that of holding fast to a principled point of view regardless
of whether or not Greens obtain votes. I think this is a mistake,
as I believe elections and other politically active moments are times
when you can have a dialogue with the population about practical ways
we can change the way we live. I am increasingly opposed to those
who think we can build platform and policy away from a constant dialogue
with the people who either support us or who are at least open to
our ideas because we share the same concerns.
Could you summarize briefly the main elements of a Green Party platform,
highlighting your own choices of the top-priority issues?
A.S.:
Greens try to build
platform around ten key values:
- ecological wisdom
- grass roots democracy
- personal and social responsibility
- non-violence
- decentralization
- community-based economics
- post-patriarchal values
- respect for diversity
- global responsibility
- future focus
In this context I
think Greens need to spend a lot of time talking to both environmentalists
and regular voters about how we could build a society based on sound
democratic and ecological principles. My main concern right now is
to understand how we can practically build an economy that consumes
less of the natural planetary regeneration.
Economy, for me,
must include healthy ecosystems, people and communities . . . in that
order. I believe we need to re-learn how to build an economy based
on what is available within our bio-regions, only trading what is
surplus to ecosystems and our human needs. In the process of discussing
policy, we must build in democratic feedback loops. The basic failure
of both the Marxist-Leninist movement and the NDP [Canada's New Democratic
Party, currently the governing party in B.C.] was that while they
made wonderful policy, they never or very rarely thought out how they
would implement this policy if they came to power. The NDP has been
a failure, because they did not address with their coalition of support
how they would overcome opposition to their intended policy. I therefore
see two key elements in platform: a democratization of the political
process by which decisions are made, and an openess to the people
so that policy is actually owned and controlled by the people themselves.
This I understand is the practice of the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico.
Deeper Concerns:
In your view, is the human species progressing, declining, or remaining
the same over time?
A.S.:
I think that all
over the world common people are struggling with the ecological, social
and economic situation facing them. In many places some very creative
solutions are emerging, but those who control the global economy and
governments that support them are becoming increasingly desperate.
The current socio-economic system cannot survive and it remains to
be seen whether those humans who understand this are willing to have
the courage to stand up and build a system that will work.
Do you have any realistic optimism for life on this planet? If so,
what's the basis for your hopeful outlook?
A.S.:
Life will always
exist on this planet as long as the atmospheric conditions exist to
support it. I am less optimistsic about whether human lifeforms will
be among those that survive the next century and worry about how much
of the existing biological diversity we will destroy while we destroy
ourselves. In the interim I think it is important that those who wish
to struggle for a different and more just human existence continue
to offer positive solutions. I currently have more faith in nature
than I do in humans, while recognizing that many humans are innocent
victims of others greed.
In a society and culture that encourages exploitation of nature,
how might people be encouraged to change their high-impact values
and behavior?
A.S.:
As a Green I believe
I must be a role model in living a life and educating others about
the importance of maintaining and allowing restoration of healthy
ecosystems. At some level humans do have an affinity for nature, especially
those who live in rural areas. Urbanization has alienated an increasing
number of humans from their natural source of survival.
We might presume that in the course of human evolution, greed and
human-centeredness has helped our survival chances. How can we accept
and work around this trait which now threatens the whole biosphere,
ourselves included? Or do we need to find a way to change it to a
conservationist ethic, at all costs?
A.S.:
Many idegenous cultures
survived into this century due to a healthy respect for ecosytems.
Adoption of the scientific method, which closely parallels the start
of the burning of wisewomen (witches) in Europe, has lead us astray
from a whollistic approach to life. Attending the the West Kootenay
- Boundary CORE [round-table Committees on Resources and Economy]
implementation strategy meetings with the Inter-Agency Management
Committee has reinforced in me the understanding that economics (already
seen by me as an inexact science) as it is now constituted is totally
bankrupt.
Two good videos to
watch are Marilyn Waring in "If Women Counted: Sex, Lies and
Economics," and "Mondragon."
Waring was a member
of the New Zealand government. First elected in 1975 at the age of
22, and having headed the prestigeous Finance Committee of the New
Zealand parliament, she chose to bring down the government in 1983
over the issue of not allowing nuclear powered and/or armed vessels
into New Zealand waters.
Mondragon is a video
about how Basque peasants were able to organize democratically controlled
industrial co-ops that, since 1957, have grown from a mere dozen apprentices
to some 23,000 worker members in the 1990's.
Interview by Nowick
Gray, June 1997
Green
Links:
Andy Shadrack
