Political party or political movement? The Liberal party has decided it wants to be both. This weekend, the party’s national board adopted a proposal (subject to approval at the Liberals’ upcoming May convention) which would do away with membership cards and fees, and allow anyone willing to register with the party — for free — to participate in policy development, the nomination of candidates, party conventions and the selection of future leaders.

The concept grew out of the Liberals’ free “supporter category”, which attracted 300,000 people during the party’s leadership race in 2012-2013.”We’ve tried the supporter system and it was a huge success,” said party president Anna Gainey. “I believe that as we continue to open up and modernize and have more of a movement than a traditional political party, that this is a natural progression of that.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau echoed those remarks: “We need to be courageous and we need to show, once again, that the Liberal party is not afraid to challenge the status quo, even if it means breaking with our own traditions … Canadians are counting on us to keep building, modernizing and opening up our movement. We can’t let them down.”

In truth, most Canadians couldn’t possibly care less about the abstruse, nap-inducing details of party membership policy. But they should pay very close attention to this move by the Liberals — as should the other parties sharing the national stage — because it could have far-reaching effects. Coupled with the Liberals’ promise of electoral reform — which would see our first-past-the-post system replaced by proportional representation, a ranked ballot, or some combination thereof — it could help entrench the Liberal party as Canada’s Natural Governing Party … forever.

By opening the gates to all comers, the Liberals default to what the party’s critics have been calling it for decades: a political organization of opportunity, the sole purpose of which is to win and wield power. An open-door Liberal party will represent everyone, and anyone, and anything they happen to believe at a given time. Without limits on membership, the Liberals will by extension have no firm principles or policies they can’t exchange for new ones at a drop of a hat. They’ll hold up a finger to the winds of opinion and win elections by mirroring back what a majority of Canadians say they want — without necessarily worrying about whether it’s a good idea.

Open membership will entrench something that works for the Liberals — being the de facto home for every Canadian voter unhappy with what the other parties have on offer.

The Liberals mean to turn themselves into the perfect political entity for a digital age of disposable ideas. It’s a great strategy. It’s also a strategy that carries a fair amount of risk for the party itself. The Liberals mean to turn themselves into the perfect political entity for a digital age of disposable ideas. It’s a great strategy. It’s also a strategy that carries a fair amount of risk for the party itself.

Don’t like the leadership of the NDP? Hang out with the Liberals for a while — no membership required. Find the Tories cranky and uninspiring? Keep your Conservative card but attend a Liberal convention — no strings attached. It’s the equivalent of turning your party into one giant Facebook page: Click ‘Like’ and you’re in the club. (Or maybe the Liberals will become the political equivalent of Ashley Madison. Don’t like your party? Have an affair! What Tom Mulcair doesn’t know won’t hurt him.)

In short, the Liberals mean to turn themselves into the perfect political entity for a digital age of disposable ideas. It’s a great strategy, in one sense. For millennials — people who are online day and night, value their independence and live freelance lives — it’s a perfect fit. It’s politics with no constraints of time or space, no demands, no commitment. Why buy when you can rent? Why marry when you can date?

It’s also a strategy that carries a fair amount of risk for the party itself — one that could veer off in all sorts of dangerous directions, depending on who’s leading the parade. In fact, it’s exactly what both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are trying to do to the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. — to turn those organizations from parties into movements embodied by, respectively, Sanders and Trump. They’re trying to expand the party tents by appealing to independent voters disenchanted with the political process.

In a two-party system, both parties can be fronted by people claiming to be “movement” candidates while still growing their bases of support. But in a multiparty system such as Canada’s — one which features ideological, one-issue and regional parties, in addition to the centrist Liberals — a Liberal no-membership plan will have the effect of sucking voters into a large, amorphous centrifuge … to the Liberals’ benefit.

And while the other parties could adopt the same policy, they’d have a much harder time making it work. If you stand for conservatism, or social democracy, or Quebec nationalism, you can’t really admit people who don’t agree with the basic tenets of those belief systems. The other parties also would face a greater danger of being taken over by special interests; one of the reasons the Conservatives increased their membership fees for their leadership contest was to discourage single-issue groups (pro-life organizations, for instance) from swamping the process.

And if electoral reform becomes a reality, the Liberals’ no-member policy takes on even greater significance. In a proportional representation system featuring five parties, it’s highly unlikely that any one party would get an out-and-out majority. But by involving more Canadians in the party through an open door policy, the Liberals could grow their numbers closer to that magic 50 per cent. They also could ensure that they become the dominant player in any coalition government — which could be every government, since coalition governments would become the new normal under PR. If Canada were to start electing federal governments by ranked ballot, the Liberals would have an even greater advantage; they could become the natural “second choice” for supporters of the other parties, which could be enough to secure majority governments.

Traditionally, political parties and political movements have been kept as separate, but symbiotic, entities. Movements generate ideas, which are taken up by parties, which get elected and (in theory) implement them. They need each other but they draw from difference talent pools and fulfill different functions. Parties focus on politics: elections, fundraising, candidate recruitment and governing. Movements focus on policy: idea generation, research, debate and promotion. For the most part, they keep their distance from each other.

The Liberals’ proposed reform would collapse those barriers and create a new creature: a movement whose purpose is to get elected. Modern? Not really. It’s called populism — and it’s as old as politics itself.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.