The Australian Greens have been extraordinarily lucky to have had four national leaders of great skill and wisdom, widely respected by their party room colleagues, the members of the party and the voting public.

But that does not alter the fact that, on principle, the selection of the leader (or co-leaders) should be a matter for all the party’s members rather than only its elected representatives.

We are in a moment in history when so much is changing, when so many of us are isolated at home, connecting to each other as best as we can and thinking about the future. This may very well be an ideal time to have this debate. And it is wonderfully promising that, at this moment, the Greens are mature enough to be able to conduct this discussion about our future in part through a genuine and respectful public exchange of ideas.

Now is the time to champion participatory decision-making and rebuild the trust people have lost in democracy. Now is the time to lead by example and demonstrate our commitment to the grassroots members by empowering and trusting them.

As former Greens leaders, we ask members not to shut the party room out of leadership votes | Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Richard Di Natale Read more

We are a party founded on a central principle of grassroots democracy, of consensus, of decision-making as a group through genuine deliberative discussion. We believe that it is only through such rigorous processes, with deep debates informed by expert opinion and thrashed out with mutual respect, that good results can be achieved. That is how we believe we can build a fairer, more just, more ecologically conscious world.

The same should be the case for the selection of our leader.

As a matter of basic democratic principle, the leader of the party should be selected by the members on the basis of one member one vote. And, as a matter of good democratic practice, we shouldn’t be afraid to have a genuine public discussion about the choice we make together. In fact, only by doing so are we likely to reach any kind of solid, lasting outcome.

The 50:50 model adopted by the ALP and advocated for by our former leaders does not solve the problems either advocates of change or those opposed to change are seeking to deal with. It does not provide the truly democratic outcome many members crave; neither does it in fact provide an appropriate safeguard.

In actuality, a 50:50 model entrenches oppositionality between members and their elected representatives. Instead of bringing us all together to make this vital decision, it risks driving us apart. It institutionalises a perceived separation between us.

Perhaps most problematic, from a very pragmatic basis, are the deep implications for the Greens of a circumstance where the members vote for one candidate and the party room outvotes us in favour of another candidate with less movement support. Where this was manageable for the Labor Party, with its history of centralised control and party discipline, it could be a disaster for a truly grassroots party like the Greens. Our Party is our members. 50:50 disenfranchises members on whom we rely entirely for our campaign capacity. The party room outvoting the members on a matter as important as leadership effectively renders them silent and could jeopardise our ability to campaign.

On the other hand, an open, inspiring contest of ideas between future leaders will excite our existing members, bring new people into the party, and create space for deeper public debate about politics.

Adam Bandt is well-placed to boost the Greens’ electoral fortunes | Paddy Manning Read more

A genuinely democratic process of one member one vote is one where we all have the same power in determining the leadership. It puts MPs and ordinary members on an equal footing. It is also possibly one of the most effective ways for the Greens to increase our campaigning capacity and, consequently, our influence in Australian politics.

Let’s be clear, the one member one vote option does not shut out the party room. It still requires that the voice of party room members is heard clearly by the members before each of us gets a vote. Any candidate wishing to put their name forward as leader must be nominated by a minimum number of their party room colleagues.

Democracy is, in many ways, the central question of our age. To what extent do we believe that each of us has the right to an equal say in our common future? The theft of our democratic rights is a major cause of the rise of the populist right, ironically paving the way for even more of our democracy to be stolen.

This is a pivotal moment for the Greens to move in the opposite direction, and to declare firmly that we believe in each other, we believe in equal say of all members of our party and we believe that more democracy is the answer.

That’s why we will be voting for the one member one vote model on the ballot, and we encourage all members to do so as well.