Zack Polanski has indicated plans to overhaul the Green Party’s deeply held grassroots democracy, proposing that leaders gain more authority over the party’s strategic direction following a contentious vote that equated Zionism with racism.
He also raised questions about whether political parties should dictate members’ beliefs, marking his sharpest rebuke to a motion that sparked fierce internal divisions, international criticism, and calls for his resignation.
In a Guardian commentary following his defeat in the Holborn and St Pancras by‑election, Polanski argued that the party’s emphasis on defining Zionism was misplaced, despite his agreement with the motion’s core arguments.
Acknowledging the criticism of his leadership on the issue, he admitted that his main focus was winning a crucial by‑election for the party and recognised that colleagues and members might feel let down by his lack of intervention last week.
He added, “I poured all my energy into the Holborn and St Pancras contest, even though Labour scheduled the vote so close to our conference, because I believe electoral success is the ultimate driver of change. I understand, however, that some members feel let down by that choice—and I hear their concerns.”
Polanski argued that the party’s rapid growth has made its current democratic structures untenable, insisting that leaders should be given greater responsibility for setting the party’s political direction.
“Our party democracy must now evolve to meet these challenges—broadening member engagement, granting leaders more authority to set the party’s strategic direction, and ensuring our processes are both robust and accessible,” he wrote.
This marks his clearest signal yet that the party’s internal structures require reform, echoing senior Greens who have warned that the current policy‑making system gives disproportionate influence to a small, highly motivated minority.
Under existing Green Party rules, policy is determined by members at the party conference rather than the leadership, a system that has drawn growing scrutiny as membership has surged.
The dispute escalated last weekend when 1,022 members—about 0.4 % of the party’s total membership—approved a motion that labelled Zionism as a form of racism and endorsed a single Palestinian state.
The motion passed by 1,022 votes to 813, with four of the five Green MPs voting against it, and drew criticism from the European Green Party, which advocates a two‑state solution.
Ellie Chowns, the Greens’ Westminster leader, warned that the party must not be vulnerable to capture by extremists and racists, arguing that the vote highlighted an urgent need to modernise its policymaking structures.
Polanski, who is Jewish and was raised in a Zionist household, wrote: “It has been difficult to navigate this flawed motion, as its core argument resonates with my view of Zionism as the ideology that underpins the displacement and genocide of Palestinians.
Many other Jewish people share this view, including Holocaust survivor Stephen Kapos, who supported the motion.
“Zionism is also complex and for many Jewish people is intertwined with identity, safety, and belonging. I believe it is not a political party’s role to dictate what people should believe, and an obsessive focus on definitions is neither advisable nor strategic.
“I also disagree with parts of the motion, particularly its prescription of a single state for Israel and Palestine. Although many view a two‑state solution as an obstacle to decisive action that would end the intolerable status quo, I maintain that neither the British government nor the Green Party should prescribe the future for Israelis and Palestinians.
These remarks extend beyond Polanski’s earlier objections, which focused mainly on the motion’s call for a single Palestinian state instead of allowing Palestinians to determine their own political future.
The controversy exposed deep divisions within the Greens and raised doubts about the party’s capacity to manage its rapid growth under Polanski’s leadership.
The Guardian previously reported that senior Greens feared the current structure enabled a small group of highly motivated activists to shape policy for the broader membership. Some suggested that members should set overarching political priorities, while smaller committees could develop detailed policies.