The Vanguard Party

I heard an interesting thing on CBC on my way into work this morning. Victor Doerksen, in his speech outlining what he'd do as leader of the Alberta Tories, indicated that he would change the process in which party members communicate with the government. This points to two scary things, first the current government is ignoring it's own party members, second, the only problem with that in the eyes of the Tories is that the government is ignoring them and to heck with the rest of Albertans. It would appear that the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta has transformed itself into a right-wing version of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The only difference being that the PC's still hold elections every now and then, though I'm sure if the polls were to indicate they might lose, that would end if they could arrange it. Let's look at the similarities:

CPSU (Communist party)
Decisions made by politburo, sent down to membership. Membership must abide by politburo decisions. Input from membership is limited and in general ignored.

PC (Alberta Tories)
Decisions made by Premier and Cabinet, sent down to membership. Membership must blindly support decision and abide by it. Input from membership is greater, but still ignored.

CPSU
Leader is coronated as head of state and government.

PC
Leader is coronate d as head of government. Would also be head of state if they could get rid of that pesky Queen.

CPSU
Party ignores wishes of majority of people who aren't party members.

PC
Party ignores wishes of majority of people who aren't party members, or big corporate donors.

Ok, so there's a slight difference here, you can buy the Tories.

CPSU
Leader must be obeyed without question.

PC
Leader must be obeyed without question.

It would seem there is little difference between the CPSU and the PC party other than how they view economics. This is troubling in that the PC's think that this is just fine. The only thing that Doerksen is complaining about is that the Tories in government aren't paying attention to the Tories that are merely holding membership cards. The impression I got was that he still really doesn't give a whit about what anyone else thinks, since they aren't party members.

Doerksen's concerns aren't unfounded, of course, as the comparison above shows. The problem he's trying to fix is partly the communication gap, but mostly the drain of party members from the Tories. Since the last election the Tories have hardly had a run on membership. I suspect that part of this is that the rank and file members feel, correctly, that they're being ignored. This is due to a party leadership that is out of touch with them and society. This leads to a party that no longer reflects the views of it's members and it won't just cost them membership, but votes as well.