As a longtime political activist, I take issue with the op-ed published by Katie Telford and Dan Gagnier on the Liberal Party’s supposed commitment to open nominations.

To most people, the whole discussion about open nominations must feel like inside baseball. Who cares about how the Liberals find a candidate in Trinity-Spadina? Who cares whether their leader vetoed a local contender? Well, I think we should all care. Because this debate is not just about hypocrisy or about how a much-ballyhooed Liberal policy seems to be honoured only when it’s convenient. It’s fundamentally about how political parties conduct themselves at the national level and how democracy is served at the local level.

Open nominations are never easy. As candidates, we ask our members, people with whom we’ve been in the political trenches over many years, to choose us rather than their friends or colleagues. But, that’s what a real open nomination process entails. It’s not just about proclaiming a rhetorical commitment to local democracy. It’s about actually allowing local democracy to occur and accepting the results. That’s the difference between words and actions when it comes to open nominations.

Open nominations can be divisive. They divide families and friends. Pit long-time neighbours against each other. And the scars from these bruising battles can last a long time. Jack Layton, as an aspiring NDP Toronto City Council candidate, lost the first nomination race he contested in 1979. Even Ed Broadbent had to face an open nomination race, and campaign hard for it, when he returned to politics in 2004 to run in Ottawa Centre. He won the race and became the MP, but look who went on to succeed him in 2006: his nomination challenger, Paul Dewar.

Open nominations cause tension, and even create surprises when expected “star” candidates lose to a well-organized challenger. But that makes our political parties stronger. It also makes democracy stronger. Open nominations engage local members and activists. They hone the skills of the contenders. They result in a larger membership and better-trained political organizers. And so importantly, they encourage thoughtful and at times rigorous debate.

In the NDP, our party mandates the creation of local search committees to seek out possible candidates, including a constitutional requirement to reach out to equity-seeking groups. Indeed, in my own current nomination, party officials and activists in my Toronto riding and in Ottawa have been on the phones and in meetings speaking with other prospective candidates. Or in my case, prospective challengers.

I announced my campaign two weeks ago and I’ve spent my days and evenings talking to hundreds of NDP members in my community. I’m under no illusion that this nomination will be given to me — by my party or my leader.

That’s why I’m so disappointed by the actions of the Liberal Party nationally and in Trinity-Spadina. I don’t pretend to know all the details or internal party objections to Christine Innes. But let’s be clear here. She didn’t have the nomination yet. Anyone could have run against her and, presumably, had a chance of defeating her. This saga underscores, for me, the emptiness of Justin Trudeau’s so-called commitment to open nominations. It’s not good for politics, it’s not good for the perception of politics, and it’s not good for democracy.

Joe Cressy is a candidate for the Federal NDP nomination in Trinity-Spadina. He is a Senior Advisor (on leave) and former Director of Campaigns and Community Outreach at the Stephen Lewis Foundation.

Read more about: