NDP Strategy, Part III: Develop Party Policies from the Grassroots
By Gregory D. Morrow

If there is one thing that Canadians – from Quebec to Ontario to Alberta – have in common, it is cynicism towards politics. Certainly, some of the cynicism is due to the daily dose of bad behavior witnessed each day in Question Period. Certainly, this cynicism is fed by the sponsorship scandal and politicians crossing the floor when a better opportunity arises (Ms. Stronach, we’re talking about you!). And for some, the cynicism comes from knowing that no matter what happens, the Liberals will be in power. And for some, this cynicism arises because they see how our electoral system badly translates votes into seats, rewarding big parties while shutting out smallers ones, rewarding regional parties while shutting out national ones. However, I would suggest that one of the biggest factors that feeds this cynicism is the way that parties and governments themselves behave.

The Canadian political system is supposed to be one of “good government”, whereby the government of the day can be trusted to make decisions on behalf of the “public interest”. To be sure, governments have always acted in their own self interest. But in the past, governments were also willing to make unpopular decisions that were in the best interests of the nation’s future. Today, that trust in government to put aside partisan legislation in favor or the common good is under serious duress. In the past, Canada was a small country, with a largely shared British and French heritage. It was easier to go talk to your local MP. Canada has doubled in population over the past 50 years. Its population has been enriched by people from around the world. Things are more complex today and there is a wider range of views held on any given issue.

And today, governments make decisions that smack not of the public good, but of the party good. Today more so than at any time in our history, politicians are disconnected from the people (the Monte Solberg blogging types being an exception). Try it yourself: try writing or emailing your MP and see what kind of response you get. I can say from personal experience that you would be lucky to get any response, let alone one actually written by your MP, or one that is anything but a form letter. Today, governments solicit comments from Canadians. But the onus is on individual citizens to make all the effort to ensure their voice is heard, and even then, it is largely after the fact. You see, in Canada, consulting with the public means showing Canadians what the government has in mind and you are free to comment on it. If people object to a specific piece, the government might tinker with that piece, just so they are absolved of criticism. This is a very different strategy from having members of the public at-large actually help craft solutions to problems. And it is in that distinction that Canadian public life must evolve. Parties and governments must be more activist in their approaches. They must engage with Canadians, working with them to craft new approaches. This goes beyond simply conducting public opinion polling. It means developing new approaches to the development of public programs and party policies.

And while developing these new approaches to legislation or government programs will take time, each party has it within its power to reform the way it crafts its policies and election platform almost immediately. As ‘consumers’ of policy choices, voters are typically presented at election time with a bundle of policy choices crafted by all-knowing policy wonks who, squirreled away behind closed doors, have unilaterally decided what is in the best interest of Canadians. This top-down approach to policy-making is decidedly a product of the centralized, mid-twentieth century power structure that has little place in a diverse, multicultural society such as Canada today. Such top-down, centralized decision-making, I would argue, contributes more to voter apathy than anything other factor, including the outdated electoral system. We can – and should – reform the way we translate votes into representatives, but if parties themselves continue to operate in a top-down way, it will change little.

I hate to say it, but political parties must begin to think less like policy wonks and more like marketing gurus. After all, parties want more people to ‘buy’ what they are offering, only using political instead of monetary capital. And what political parties are ‘selling’ is information – ideas for how to solve the problems of our time. To do so, you need to understand your market better and what it is the people want. I am not at all convinced that political parties do this. Since parties in Canada – all except the Liberals – are so steeped in ideology, they loath to give the consumer what he or she wants. No, that would probably result in messy compromises and ideological contradictions. Instead, parties are beholden only to their party membership. And given that the kind of people who are “hard-core” enough to go to a party convention to vote on party policy, this process reinforces rigid ideologies. The platforms that result from this process are not necessarily what Canadians want – they are forced upon them by policy-makers and the most extreme of party members, rather than crafted hand-in-hand with potential voters. It is a curious thing. You would think parties would be interested in knowing what the electorate thinks. Chances are, if you craft party policies hand-in-hand with the voters, they are more likely going to vote for you.

This hand-in-hand process of arriving at solution is not new, nor is it a utopian dream. It is done all the time. Grassroots organizations across the country are continually working with communities to reach solutions to pressing problems. It is a particularly successful method used in urban planning to bring together a wide range of interests to solve local problems. Urban planning is a great illustration of how a changed method of arriving at decisions can bring infinitely more legitimacy. Urban planning in the 1960s was top-down. Beginning the 1970s, it began to change to a bottom-up process. This change was slower in Canada than elsewhere, however, as we hung onto the notion that the public sector was wise and objective. But things have changed in Canada over the past decade.

These hand-in-hand meetings in the urban planning world are called “charrettes”, and they are ideal vehicles for parties to reach out to potential voters across a wide range of interests in order to draft policies. This would be welcome change from the insular corporate model that all of the major political parties currently employ. If the NDP is supposed to stand up for (and with) the little guy and eschew the big impenetrable corporate model, then it should be all over this idea. It is about connecting with our communities, going to the people. The NDP is the party of the people, not of the corporate and political interests, after all. A ‘charrette’ consists of a series of short meetings, held in a short time span on evenings and weekends, where key problems are quickly identified, solutions are brainstormed, and a succinct strategy to address those problems is produced – by the stakeholders themselves (with so-called ‘experts’ on hand to help with technical details, if necessary). These meetings are not mere rant sessions where people voice their displeasures. The goal is to synthesize a strategy that can implement change on a given issue. Imagine the fresh ideas that a system such as this would yield if every city and town conducted a charrette on healthcare reform, a charrette on electoral reform, a charrette on implementing Kyoto, among others.

Implementing a series of policy charrettes would encourage more people to become involved in politics. And, as a happy by-product for a party like the NDP, it has the potential to transform the NDP in the wider public’s eye. At present, the party operates much like the very insular corporations with hierarchical power structures that it claims to eschew. It is an opportunity for the NDP to get back to its grassroots origins. Charrettes would turn this corporate model upside down, connecting people within communities and across communities. It would bring new ideas to the table. And – yes – it would very likely bring more people into the party and result in more votes on election night. Everyday Canadians want to play a greater role in the affairs of government – not only at election time, but between elections and in crafting party policy.

Most importantly, the policy positions that result from these charrettes directly reflect the desires of the people. Even if voters choose a different party at election time, they will know that the NDP is listening to them. I believe there can be no better strategy for reaching out and expanding a party’s base than to do what every Canadian expects of it: to listen to its concerns and to craft policies that respond to their needs.

The NDP can be that party. It only needs to take the lead. A series of national charrettes to develop pary policy from the bottom-up, from the grassroots, is an idea whose time has come.