A case study in accusation-as-verdict, retroactive rule-making, and why party systems collapse the moment power is threatened
Political parties like to speak the language of democracy. Fewer are willing to practice it when power is on the line.
On December 13, 2025, the Board of Directors of OneBC issued two resolutions that, taken together, reveal something far more serious than an internal dispute. They reveal how democratic process can be quietly bypassed — not through open confrontation, but through procedural maneuvering designed to produce a predetermined outcome.
This is not about personalities. It is about method. And method matters.
Accusation as Verdict
The first resolution begins with an explosive claim: that agents acting on behalf of interim leader Dallas Brodie attempted to seize control of party assets through unauthorized security breaches.
- No evidence is provided.
- No investigation had yet taken place.
- No findings are cited.
Nevertheless, the conclusion was immediate: removal of the interim leader.
This represents a fundamental inversion of due process. In any democratic organization, allegations trigger investigation. Findings trigger consequences. Here, the consequence came first. The investigation was ordered afterward.
