Thursday, June 6, 2002
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER -- Two down and five to go. Since the November 2000 federal election, two of the five major federal political parties have seen their leadership change. Stockwell Day was driven out by a backroom battle, that saw the Canadian Alliance go for Stephen Harper. Now, Alexa McDonough has decided to bag her leadership in favour of her party embarking on its own leadership contest. Importantly, the NDP will go through a period of deep reflection as to its direction. The next leader, whoever will succeed McDonough, will be in a position of great importance. The next leader will be in a position to marshal the forces on the left, or merely to continue the party’s spiralling loss of relevance.
Alexa McDonough’s leadership of the federal New Democratic Party has been an exercise in mixed success. She inherited a nine-member NDP caucus that sat as independents without formal recognition in the House. She led the New Democrats into the 1997 election taking the party to 21 seats. However from the 1997 election to the one in 2000, the left went through a process of reappraisal not only in Canada but around the world. We saw eventful goings-on in Seattle, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, where the left was alive and actively challenging the WTO, G8 and other capitalist outfits. Yet these protestations, led by many exemplary left-wingers in this country, failed to bring about a rise in NDP support here.
There are many concerned with the rise of multinational corporations and the rise of neo-conservatism in the world. In Canada, during the free trade debate of the late ‘80s, many flocked to the New Democrats of Ed Broadbent to show their discontent with Mulroney’s Free Trade Agreement with the US, and the subsequent NAFTA that included Mexico. However in the late 1990s, where multinationals became fewer and much larger, there remained many progressive voices challenging the status quo and the burgeoning of capitalism, without a political party. The MAI was defeated by people from the NDP, the Council of Canadians and others. We saw progressive voices express concern towards APEC leaders in this town, and many more voices concerned with the WTO, making a mess in Seattle. Yet come 2000 when it came time to vote federally, what were supposedly “left” voters opted for parties other than the NDP.
This made for a clear indication that the NDP was in disarray. In British Columbia not only did middle-of-the-road BCers become upset at the ten years of NDP rule, but traditional constituencies of the party flocked to the growing Green Party. Federally, the NDP’s support plummeted during Alexa McDonough’s second run. The Liberals grew in 2000, and their current troubles aside, it’s safe to say that a lot of that support was gained from traditional NDP voters who were afraid of Stockwell Day and the Canadian Alliance. Beyond that strategic voting, though, the NDP is in a conflict. It is a severe conflict that it will have to wrestle with during the next few years. This upcoming leadership contest will be the start of that process.
The NDP, like any other political party, has divergent interests and a number of factions. In the present Parliamentary caucus of the NDP, there are different poles within the left-wing variety that the NDP is. Svend Robinson, a BC MP, represents a sort of younger more left-wing of the party. Robinson, himself a staunch protester at WTO and the lot, probably wouldn’t balk at the over throw of capitalism and the subsequent sliding to socialism. On the other side of the party is someone like Lorne Nystrom, the long-time MP from Saskatchewan, or Bill Blaikie from Manitoba. Nystrom, himself a Privy Councillor, would be close to a Roy Romanow kind of democratic socialism. A sort of acceptance of capitalism, but with a requisite happy face. This sort of NDP is embodied in the premiership of Bob Rae in Ontario, who besides opposing Svend Robinson’s foreign policy, tried to please big business before having the entire province turn against him.
An NDP led by Robinson, would be an NDP that probably would move to rebranding the party and what it stands for. Robinson, with Libby Davies another BC MP, supported the New Politics Initiative. It was a plan that Judy Rebick and other rabble rousers pulled for at the recent NDP convention. The NPI proposed radical changes that called for the NDP to cease to exist, so that a new more socially democratic (i.e. more left) party would be created. That proposal was rejected at that NDP convention in Winnipeg last winter. Subsequently many felt this would alienate the significant number of ‘young’ people, who heretofore balked at supporting the NDP. These younger people, usually would vote for something out of the norm like the Green Party or something more extreme.
So if not, the Robinson way of social democracy, what? Perhaps were Lorne Nystrom or Bill Blaikie to take the helm, there would be some currying of organised labour’s favour. People like Buzz Hargrove of the Canadian Auto Workers union have wanted the NDP to move to the left, focusing on the interests of working people. Now, that’s a novel idea, considering Hargrove’s own words have been to move the party to the “left”, whatever that means. But barring Hargrove’s own dissatisfaction with Ms. McDonough, there have been some pragmatic voices calling for the NDP to emulate Tony Blair and the general success the left has seen in Europe.
The success of Blair’s Labour in Great Britain is that of taking the Labour brand of capitalism with a smiling face to the people. After nearly 20 years of Thatcherism, it was a welcome relief. Yet deep down Blair’s Third Way has become Thatcherism itself. Though successful in the electoral sense, the Labour Party has achieved success without daring to alter some of Mrs. Thatcher’s inherent characteristics of governance.
Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, said he’d personally oppose the party taking a Blair approach with the party. So has Ms. McDonough herself, though, movement has been minimal during her tenure and that of her predecessor Audrey McLaughlin. Certainly, Svend Robinson wouldn’t implement a Blairite approach to electability either. However this more or less liberal (in the classical sense) approach to politics as practised by Blair is one sought after by the average Canadian voter. Canadian voters across this nation, scared to vote Alliance, and despairing at the Liberals, would wholeheartedly support a middle-left kind of Labour, should the NDP go that route. However the NDP, either in the Robinson mould, the McDonough mould or the Hargrove mould, seems unwilling to sell out so.
Alexa McDonough’s resignation brings the NDP to a crossroads. It must redefine itself for the 21st century. It must choose a brand of left -- the true socialist (Robinson/environmentalist) or the middle-lefty (Hargrove, union/Blair) -- or maintain the status quo. The status quo however, has been a contentious battle between the two (or more) main streams within the party. Whomever is chosen to succeed McDonough, they will be charged with the task of bringing out a new NDP. That could involve dumping the NDP name altogether. Nonetheless, if it’s MPs Lorne Nystrom, Bill Blaikie, or Svend Robinson; Buzz Hargrove himself, or Toronto City Counsellor Jack Layton, this race and its conclusion will be interesting to watch.
Of the next three leaders to watch -- Liberal PM Jean Chrétien, the Bloc Quebecois’ Gilles Duceppe, and Conservative Joe Clark -- my guess is that Chrétien will be next, followed closely by Joe Clark. Duceppe is harder to read, considering Quebec politics is most difficult to comprehend. I don’t doubt he’ll be around the next election though.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .