Luke Akehurst reports the results of the elections help by Compass (direction for the democratic left). He suggests that the organisation is not in good health if judged by the participation of its members.
I’m loathed to criticise Compass because past history suggests it results in personal attacks from its officers. However, I think it’s an important debate to be had. The internet has unleashed a wave of participation and, in some instances, channelled that participation into meaningful, lasting activism. After years of presuming that membership organisations were dying, the web suggested they could be rescued. So what can we learn from Compass about how organisations can engage with people to affect change?
The election results reveal that 20 people stood for its management committee and 23 for its youth committee. In total, 237 people voted – or just 6% of the membership. That’s slightly less than a trade union general secretary election but roughly similar to Labour’s NEC elections (as far as I can remember). The winning totals ranged from 90 first choice preferences down to just 5. The election victors were largely people with personal profiles, separate to their involvement in Compass.
However, it’s a more complicated picture than that. Compass has 25,000 supporters and over 4000 members. More than 900 activists have signed its statement calling for a high pay commission. And thousands of people a year have signed petitions, statements and attend Compass debates and events. So it’s not that Compass isn’t successful at engaging with people.
The finances of Compass don’t appear to be publicly available. But assuming that all members pay the full rate (£30 a year), plus a bit for organisational membership, Compass raises about £150,000 a year from its members. Assuming that all events break even, they must earn something around £10,000 a year in ticket sales. So the activism that they encourage isn’t just limited to reactionary things – or armchair (or computer screen) activism.
It’s certainly brave that Compass have a level of membership democracy. Some of those who run older membership organisations would rather not. One senior trade unionist used to tell me that if she were to start a new trade union, she would make sure there wasn’t any internal democracy. It’s also in keeping with their political ideals. But it’s an expensive exercise to run internal elections. Indeed, one of the barriers to primaries in parliamentary candidate selection is the cost of organising them for constituency parties.
So why isn’t Compass able to engage members more deeply? One reason might be that there aren’t significant benefits to being a member. The website says that you get invited to events, get monthly emails, get to debate on their website, campaign on issues – as well as taking part in its democratic structures. As a non member of Compass who currently gets invited to more events than I can attend, receives regular emails (including a ballot paper) can comment on the website and join in their campaigns – the benefits to membership appear marginal.
One other possibility is that engagement in the management of the organisation doesn’t mean very much. As we learned in the debate about the ‘How to Live in the 21st century‘ initiative, many of Compass’ campaigns emerge from current affairs rather than member-led initiatives. That’s almost certainly the best way to run a political campaign – but lacks the extra layer of grassroots authenticity.
Some of this is inherent in Compass’ origins. It was formed out of a statement drafted by a range of thought leaders in the Labour party before becoming a formal organisation by Neal Lawson – who always tops the ballot of internal elections. Without Lawson’s drive, vision and inspiration, it’s impossible to see how Compass could succeed. But it also makes it hard to imagine members changing the organisation’s direction.
But if Compass is not able to make membership more meaningful – or re-imagine the role of members – it may find an important source of income reducing.
So what could Compass do to make membership more rewarding? Here are four modest proposals, in the spirit of promoting debate about the challenge of turning supporters and activists into members.
- Enable deeper networking on the site between members so that people can increase their own political profile through membership – and keep it closed to non-members
- Host private debates with senior ministers / political figures which are invitation-only and make it clear to supporters that they can only attend (or watch online) if they join
- Present members with a shortlist of possible campaigns and engage them in the process of prioritising them, and deciding on campaign tactics
- Identify more ways to advertise the impact members have made on the organisation’s campaigns. For example, advertising which lists their name in recognition of their contribution to changing a government policy