The NDP will not lose its principles with Thomas Mulcair. Rather,
one hopes that with him they have the chance to win power and finally
apply them.Some things just happen. No one sees them coming. When they do, we can’t guess their consequences.
Case in point: First, the NDP’s sweep of Quebec in last year’s federal election and becoming the Official Opposition and thus government-in-waiting. (Even now when I write this I wonder, “Did this really happen?”) Second, Jack Layton, the NDP leader who had done the unexpected, dies at the very peak of his career, and a new leader must be found to take the party to power.
There were people in the party who said from the outset of the leadership race that who that new leader should be was a no-brainer. He or she must be the one likely to hold the most Quebec seats, most credible as a prime minister, and most able to put an end to the odious rule of Stephen Harper.
That person was, of course, Thomas Mulcair and he was, indeed, chosen at last week’s NDP leadership convention.
I personally found the logic compelling. But for what it’s worth, having long been on the left of the party, I listened to the voices of my heart and soul, until logic overwhelmed me. With a choice between Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar and Niki Ashton as the most progressive, I chose Nash. Ashton was unready for the top. Dewar’s French was unacceptable for someone wanting to lead a federal party. Nash had launched her campaign with an economic strategy distinctly different from the neo-liberal model that dominates both the Conservative and Liberal parties.
Sadly, her campaign faded. Given the continuing fragility of the global economy, and the possible need for a considerably more aggressive national economic policy, Nash’s inability to win over more party members may turn out to have been unfortunate. Mulcair should look seriously at the position Nash was trying to define.
The dissent that had the best hope of mattering came from the entrenched establishment of the party, led by elder statesperson Ed Broadbent. Backroom strategist Brian Topp was anointed as a candidate for his own considerable qualities, but also – let’s be frank about it -– to stop Mulcair.
Broadbent, it should be recalled, had endorsed Layton at the outset of the last leadership race eight years ago and without it, Layton might well have not succeeded. For that we should always be grateful to him. He should have stopped when he was ahead.
This time, with the credible alternative of Mulcair, and with Topp, who had never been elected to anything,unable to become more credible, Broadbent’s support of Topp failed to help the presumptive heir
Instead, what happened was that Topp was touted as “family” who could be trusted to be faithful to the social democratic soul of the party. Mulcair was termed an outsider, too much of a pragmatist, who would move the party to the centre. It was a negative and divisive discourse that did no credit to the Topp campaign.
Come the convention, if there is a surprise, it was Nathan Cullen running third. From his speech to the convention, one could see why he had been able to come out of nowhere. As a speaker, he’s a “natural,” able to wander about on the stage without a script. He spoke in opposition to the pipeline that would take oil from the tar sands across his riding to the Pacific and talked, with refreshing candour, about our “petro-dollar” and our being a “petro-state.” A flyer was distributed on the floor with Naomi Klein (no less) endorsing him for his “grassroots” connection. The party’s future may lie with him. I moved to Cullen on my way to Mulcair.
When one looked at the first ballot numbers, and pondered them arithmetically, it was as clear as it could be that Mulcair would be the winner and that the others would drop off in order. The ballots would have to take place but the result was pre-ordained. That is presumably in some part a consequence of members voting on the Internet, able to cast a preferential ballot that locks in their preferences – a triumph of democracy over deal-making and drama.
Mulcair, to his credit, took command quickly after winning. He named Libby Davies, the very progressive and much-loved MP, to continue as deputy leader though she had been one of the first to endorse the anti-Mulcair Topp. That made me happy.
However, having been instantly branded a “socialist” by the Harper attack dogs, Mulcair mused about removing the term “democratic socialism” from the NDP constitution. Maybe, because, as one friend put it, it would only recognize reality. But maybe not, because it is likely to be seen, both inside and outside the party, as an unambiguously centrist step.
Why not take that phrase “democratic socialism” with its long and illustrious history and define it so it does have meaning today? (Incidentally, that would be a great task by way of kick starting the newly created Broadbent Institute, named after Ed and intended to flesh out what social democratic policy should be.) Otherwise, as we groom for power, we increase the real risk of becoming, like the British Labour Party under Tony Blair, the left wing of neo-liberalism.
NDP members made it clear at this convention that they want their party to go for government. Frankly, that’s what we’ve always wanted but haven’t been credible in saying so at the federal level. Now that the opportunity is there, the party has taken it.
That was the right decision. From its considerable history, from its influence on federal governments, from its many experiences as provincial governments, the party knows its principles. The whole point of electoral politics is to win power and apply those principles.
May the new leader and the party together find the language and the policies to define the new way forward for Canada.
Original Article
Source: the mark news
Author: Mel Watkins
No comments:
Post a Comment