opinion
The National Farmers Union is no stranger to radical ideas. It and its predecessors have flirted with everything from farmers’ strikes to rowdy demonstrations. But can it handle the radical concept being promoted by its new president?
Just before her election last week, president Nettie Wiebe told NFU delegates that the organization should welcome members whose views differ from NFU policy. Too often, she said, the organization seems to imply that farmers who disagree with it are ignorant:
“That’s elitist. We just might be wrong about some things.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
That’s a refreshing new attitude that could usefully be emulated by other farm organizations. (It would be even more refreshing to hear politicians and government bureaucrats also say “we just might be wrong about some things,” but that might be too much to hope for.)
Ironically, the week before the NFU convention there was another farmer convention that could also have used Wiebe’s advice. Some delegates at the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association convention complained that Canadian Wheat Board commissioners and staff interfered in the election of the board’s advisory committee.
Rather than accept the fact that WCWGA-endorsed candidates were defeated because the association is out of step with the views of the large majority of farmers, these delegates complained that the board influenced the election results through speeches and public statements. One delegate even accused the board of “choosing its own advisory committee.”
That may sound like no more than the usual whining from sore losers, who can be found in every occupation, but there are two things seriously wrong with such comments.
First, if board staff are prevented from giving public explanations of how the board operates, then farmers will be denied useful information that helps them decide if their grain is being properly marketed.
Second, such comments are unfair to the thousands of farmers who considered the issues and cast ballots in the advisory committee election. By and large, they made up their own minds, as farmers usually do. They weren’t meekly following the orders of anyone in a suit with a board lapel pin, and they weren’t ignorant rubes conned by fast-talking city slickers.
Instead of trying to deny the validity of the election results, those vocal Wheat Growers delegates should try saying those eight little words to themselves: “We just might be wrong about some things.” The more farm groups there are with that attitude, the greater the chance of getting consensus on changes that will benefit farmers.
