Key facts
- Green Party membership has grown from approximately 68,000 to over 230,000 since Zack Polanski became leader.
- The party is considering changes to its policy-making process, which currently relies on in-person voting at conferences.
- Potential reforms include delegate nominations by local parties or the introduction of online voting.
- A motion to declare 'Zionism is racism' was delayed at a recent conference.
- The leader's powers are limited, with only one vote on the party's executive committee.
The Green Party is undergoing internal discussions about reforming its policy-making processes to accommodate a significant surge in membership since Zack Polanski assumed leadership. The current system, which relies on in-person voting at two annual conferences, is seen by some as unrepresentative and potentially empowering a small, organised group of activists.
Discussions are exploring options such as having local parties nominate delegates to vote on behalf of their members, or implementing online voting to allow broader participation. One party official highlighted that the current in-person voting model is 'self-selecting' and disproportionately affects members who cannot easily attend conferences due to work or financial constraints. Another figure noted that with only a tiny fraction of the membership making policy decisions, systemic change is necessary.
Recent controversies, such as a delayed motion at the spring conference to label Zionism as racism, underscore the challenges of the current system. The party is also grappling with resource limitations due to its rapid growth, although its financial situation is improving. Some senior Greens believe Polanski has been too focused on public communication and needs to dedicate more time to internal structural improvements.
There is also a debate about the suitability of the party's leadership model, which grants the leader limited powers, for a numerically large and increasingly popular party. While Polanski won a significant majority of member votes for his leadership, the structure requires policy decisions to be ratified at conferences, limiting agility. Some argue for a balance between conference-set policies and greater trust and leeway for the leader, with accountability mechanisms in place. Others contend that Polanski can interpret core values and respond to events, with members providing oversight.