Describe and account for the decline of the Green Party

"Green politics as such is virtually invisible."

`The quote from Dobson accurately sums up the current position of the British Green Party. It would appear that since the remarkable electoral result of June 1989, the British Green Party has declined, not only electorally but as a serious political movement in Britain. I believe however, that this picture of the British Green Party is misleading. The questions that should be asked are, why did the British Green Party achieve such a remarkable result and why did it fail to build on it's 1989 success? In answering these questions, there are two main areas to focus on: firstly the electoral results of the British Green Party pre- and post-1989 and secondly the structure and ideology (or ideologies) of the party.

`One word sums up the British Green Party's electoral results, before and after 1989 - poor. In the 1984 European elections, their average vote was 2.4%, whilst in the 1983 and 1987 British general elections they averaged 1% and 1.4% respectively. After the 1989 European elections they stood only 254 candidates in the 1992 British general election and averaged 1.3% - lower than in 1987.

`Given these results it seems more precise to view 1989 as an anomaly rather than a zenith for the British Greens. The reasons for the freak result were mainly dissatisfaction with the main political parties (the Conservatives for the Poll Tax, Labour for changing its policy on nuclear weapons and the Liberal Democrats for the mess it had made merging with the S.D.P.), coupled with a growing awareness of environmental issues mirrored by a massive increase in media coverage. Such was the concern that even Margaret Thatcher (the woman who had previously regarded the British Greens as part of the "enemy within") was "converted". She gave two speeches in the Autumn of 1988, to the Royal Society and the Conservative Party Conference, both on environmental issues.

`The wide-spread effect of this new awareness was not confined to the British Green Party. Between 1988 and 1989, membership of Friends of the Earth increased from 31,000 to 125,000, membership of Greenpeace increased from 150,000 to 281,000 whilst membership of all environmental groups increased from 3 to 5 million between 1983 and 1989.

This is a preview of the whole essay

`In the 1989 European elections, the Green Party won 15% of the national vote, 20% in some divisions and in 6 divisions actually beat the Labour Party for second place. However the turnout for the elections was only 36% (due probably to the ignorance surrounding the purpose of the European elections) and due to the nature of the political system, the Green Party won no seats. The 15% that they did win was evenly spread across the country so there were no particular areas to concentrate on (although both the Green Party and it's predecessor the Ecology Party have traditionally been strongest in the south and south-west) and build in. Cootes is undoubtedly right that "in the absence of electoral reform, the Green Party is likely to remain on the margin", yet this does not fully explain the "decline" of The British Green Party.

`"In one respect, and perhaps only one, the Greens are a real political party. They are good at internal disputes."

`This quote goes a long way to illustrating the other main reason why the British Green Party has become marginalized - continuous fighting between opposing factions, representing different ideologies. As Gavin Evans puts it, "the same old story has unfolded for the Green Party: insufficiently strong or decisive leadership has failed to lift the party out of the mire of internal dispute."

`It may be that the success of the 1989 elections merely served to exacerbate the latent tensions within the party, as it attempted to capitalize on the result.

`1991 saw the formation of Green 2000, a group within the party dedicated to gearing the party for electoral success. It was responsible for forcing through major constitutional changes at the Green Party's annual conference in 1991, attempting to make the party executive more efficient (by reducing it from 25 to 9 members) more democratic and more responsible to the party membership as a whole. However at the same time a new body, the Regional Council was established (ostensibly as an advisory body to the executive but mainly to placate Green 2000's critics) and what effectively happened was the two opposing factions each took over a body, the "centralists" the executive, the "decentralists" the Regional Council (which now became the "decentralist conscience of the party") and carried on fighting. The factions appear to be more about strategy than ideology - Centralists argue for a predominant national organization with high profile national electoral action and local party campaigning whilst decentralists argue for grass-root organization with the national body playing a negligible role (a similar structure to the Ecology Party) and an emphasis on radical local campaigning.

`Whatever the disagreement between the two factions, the practical effects on the party have been disastrous. Membership has dropped from a 1990 peak of 18,253 to an estimated 5,500 for 1993 which has meant serious financial problems (the Green Party being funded solely by it's members' subscriptions) whilst 1992 saw a spate of resignations from the executive, notably Sara Parkin who claimed the Green Party was a liability to Green politics (Parkin's resignation had been demanded by the Regional Council who had accused her of "political incompetence" - an ambiguous but convenient charge).

`Evans takes the view that the Green Party is being destroyed by a minority of activists (presumably the decentralists) but blames the structure of the party for allowing this to happen: "Green Party structures ... represent a clear case of the best being the enemy of the good - ostensibly participatory structures frustrate representative democracy." This is an important reason for the inability of the Green Party to make an impact - internal fighting is both time-consuming and tiring but it seems the fighting is made worse by a lack of direction. As Dobson puts it, "the Green Movement has spent years trying to get the environment onto the political agenda ... now ... this has been accomplished it seems unsure where to go next."

`This though is not quite true - what the Green Party suffers from is not a lack of ideology but two conflicting ones, fundamental differences which partly manifest themselves in the opposing factions.

`The dominant ideology, (advocated by the centralists) is "Environmentalism", which is what the public tends to think of as Green politics. "Light greens" (as they are termed) basically advocate using environmentally-friendly products, recycling resources, using parliamentary power to reform society into a green society.

`The less well known green ideology is that of "ecologism" which was described by two "Dark Greens" as a "non-violent revolution ... new economic and social order ... a ... radical ... political and cultural force ... (my own emphasis). It is fair to say that ecologism is slightly more extreme than environmentalism, which is probably why the Green Party doesn't publicise it widely, as it believes it would alienate the public. Some commentators disagree, one (a non-green) claiming that "if the movement is to grow ... it will ... have to mobilize this dark-green side as well as the light-green forces of reasoning, debating and campaigning."

`In conclusion, I would argue that the British Green Party has not declined, the 1989 result being a fluke, due to a combination of different factors but the party itself has problems, both ideologically and structurally which are preventing it from making a greater impact on British society. I see ecologism as being superior to environmentalism as it is a radical, long-term, anti-capitalist view of society whereas environmentalism is a reformist anti- industrialist theory, but the British political and social culture is not receptive to such a view - yet. More serious is the need to formulate a workable strategy and a party structure that will allow argument and different opinions without collapsing into factions.

`Until these problems are resolved, then the Green Party will remain marginalized.

`(Length: 1350 words)