The first time I heard ʻsovereigntyʼ used to refer to the relationship between the
Policy Committee and Caucus was at the June Policy Committee Face-to-Face meeting when Steve asserted that, technically, the Committee did not have to do any of the updates the Parliamentary Team requested for the Election. This idea – that Policy Committee has the authority to make decisions and act independently of Caucus and Executive on matters under its mandate – was enlisted often when I conducted my fieldwork and was central to the shared understandings the Committee members had about their role and the structure of the organization. In practice, though, maintaining a boundary of sovereignty can be problematic. The fact that the Policy Committee and Caucus are part of the same organization working toward the same goals meant that they often amicably work together in practice in order to achieve their mutual aims. However, at other times, when the two wings are operating on different understandings of what aspects of Green decision-making should be foregrounded and backgrounded, tensions arise and the usually good working relationship becomes problematic.
The objective structure for the relationship between Caucus, the Policy Committee,
and policy is set out mainly in the Green Partyʼs (2009b) Party-Caucus Agreement,
and reinforced in other documents. The Party-Caucus Agreement (Green Party
2009b:6.1) states that MPs are “bound by the Green Party policies and strategic positions they agreed to uphold at the General Election at which they were last elected, with the exception of any conscientious objections registered on their candidate nomination form.” This agreement, then, precludes Caucus from creating policy themselves and instead binds them to Party policy as made by the
membership and Policy Committee. This is further entrenched in the Green Party
Constitution, where the Policy Committee is the only body identified as being “responsible for the development and ratification of Party policy and processes” (Green Party 2011a:11.1). The processes by which Caucus can have input into
policy are clearly set out in the Policy Guidelines (Green Party 2007): they can
identify issues that need addressing when the policy program is being developed or request an urgent policy process to be enacted for an issue (Green Party 2007:4.1,6). Because of their amicable relationship, however, in practice Caucus and the Parliamentary Team often send requests to the Committee for administrative updates and other matters. What is crucial to their friendly
requests; rather, Committee decides whether or not to act on Caucus requests in the same way it does for requests from any Party member or group and is thus able to retain its sovereignty while taking into account Caucusʼ wishes.
Underlying the organization of this objective structure is the Principle of Appropriate Decision-Making. When I talked to Policy Committee members about the sovereign
relationship, they told me emphatically that it was a ʻgoodʼ structure because it
meant that the ability to make decisions rested with the appropriate people – the Party members and delegated bodies – rather than a far smaller number of Caucus members. Antony, for example, told me:
The sovereignty is a larger part of the Party design. I think the Party design into [the] three wings of having Policy, Executive, and Caucus is a very good design and itʼs a separation of powers, and I think that having… that is important to ensuring that there is no cabal at the center of the Party that is necessarily controlling everything. And it helps to keep things democratic to a certain extent.
James built on Antonyʼs assertions and linked them directly to policy creation:
[Policy Committeeʼs] sovereignty from Caucus helps in that the Party itself can actually make policy which contradicts what MPs have said, and which MPs have strong opinions over, and that means that the Green Partyʼs positions actually reflect what the membership thinks, rather than what the MPs want… It means that instead of one person making a decision, that you have the collective membership making decisions over what they think… [MPs] have to accept them.
Historically, managing the boundaries between the Policy Committee and Caucus has not always been easy. I discussed this with John at length:
We used to have huge tension between Caucus and Policy and it got so bad… that MPs were not even allowed to give feedback on policies. Well,
thatʼs bullshit. But thatʼs how tense it was. Weʼve almost, almost gone back
the other way. And Iʼm quite keen to not let the pendulum swing too far but try and find that middle ground sooner rather than doing this for a while, swinging back and forth [moving his hand in a pendulum motion]. And just geeently slow that pendulum down [slowing down the movement of his hand], and say ʻNo, no, no Caucus; youʼre not running Policyʼ.
John continued by highlighting the unifying moral project of enacting the Charter Principles, which helps to overcome practical problems in the Policy Committee- Caucus-Policy nexus:
Thereʼs a historic precedent for that, you know, before we had policy on certain things, MPs would just say shit… But thatʼs where our Charter Principles come into play… And you canʼt write policy on everything. This is where we have to trust them, that theyʼre going to think about what theyʼre going to say and that itʼs going to be broadly in line with the Principles; and, for the most part they have. Thereʼs been no really egregious violations of that. And usually Caucus will self-sensor; Caucus will slap down their own if they go too far.
Therefore, in objective structure and in practice, the sovereignty of Policy Committee in the Partyʼs policy-making is based on the Principle of Appropriate Decision-
Making which works to ensure decisions are made ʻat the appropriate levelʼ.
Because the appropriative level of making policy decisions is with the general Party membership and Policy Committee, Caucus is deliberately excluded from being able to exercise decision-making power with regard to policy in the Partyʼs objective structure. The ʻappropriatenessʼ of this is widely accepted in the Party, but tensions arise when sovereignty comes under pressure as a result of the two bodies operating on different Green decision-making priorities.