The upcoming federal NDP convention in Halifax will feature an interesting question that has long been a topic of debate for Dippers: whether or not to drop the “New” from New Democratic Party of Canada to become the Democratic Party of Canada. It’s not exactly revolutionary, but it does mark a change in both literal and symbolic terms.

A case can be made either way.

On the one hand, NDP is a recognizable “brand” across both federal and provincial levels and dropping the “new”, however minor, would require some re-branding. Some of this is practical — it means spending money on a new logo, new signs, new literature, updating the website, etc. Some on the far left of the party might also see it as a tacit alignment with the U.S. Democrats, who are hardly left-of-center on most issues — so many will not like the connotations.

On the other hand, others argue that the “new” is meaningless; after all they have been “new” for almost 50 years, long before most party members were even born. Furthermore, others argue the NDP precisely needs to renewal its “brand”. They argue that Canadians might give the Democratic Party of Canada a second look, particularly if there are positive connotations with Barack Obama in the U.S.

That’s the heart of the matter: does a name change make the party appear to be more mainstream? And does that increase their appeal? is that desirable? Or does it alienate the base who may fear the party would move away from its traditional positions?

The are Facebook groups for both the change and status quo, and even a fledgling group who are just ambivalent. Judging by the numbers (4 to 1 in favour of the status quo), it’s safe to say that the status quo has the upper hand.

Who supports what? We know Windsor West (ON) MP Brian Masse, Victoria (BC) MP Denise Savoie, Ottawa Centre (ON) MP Paul Dewar and Sackville-Eastern Shore (NS) MP Peter Stoffer and Acadie-Bathurst (NB) MP Yvon Godin all support change. But interestingly, I don’t see any NDP MPs supporting the status quo on the Facebook group, although it’s possible they do privately or have otherwise make their views public. If you know of others who’ve declared one way or the other, feel free to leave a comment below with a link.

My opinion? For the status quo, there is no upside and probably little downside. So, for the risk-averse, it’s the best bet. For change, there is the potential for upside but also possibly some downside (and cost). So change carries more risk, but also more upside. While change might end up being just window dressing, it could also kick-start a more genuine renewal. I tend to think periodic renewal of political parties is healthy, so I would probably vote in favour of change if I were a Dipper. And I do think open-minded Canadians would give the party a second look, since there is so much fatigue with the current parties. Whether that translates into more MPs and more votes will depend on running a good campaign. And I think that the vast majority of members who believe in the party’s principles will continue support the party regardless of the name, so I don’t see a major impact on the base.

My prediction? Hard-care party members for any party (i.e. the kind that attend conventions) tend to favour the status quo — after all, their affiliation with the party is part of their identity, so asking people to change the name is like asking to change a party of themselves (and most people don’t like to change!). At the very least, it takes time for people to come to terms with change. So I’m guessing the NDP comes out of Halifax the same NDP that goes into it. Whether that’s a good thing or bad is at the heart of the “new” debate.

9 September 2008

The Honourable Jack Layton
Leader, New Democratic Party
300 – 279 Laurier West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J9

Dear Jack,

I run DemocraticSPACE, a non-partisan election website that some 300,000 unique Canadians visited during the 2006 election campaign. As you might imagine from the website’s name, I place democratic principle above partisan politics.

So it is with great disappointment that I write to you today to express my solemnest condemnation of your actions in denying the Green Party a place at the debate table. As it stands, the Liberals, Bloc Québécois, and Greens stand ready to debate. Only you and Stephen Harper are refusing to debate if Elizabeth May speaks. In join forces with the Conservatives to deny the Greens a voice, you have betrayed your principles and the principles of the New Democratic Party.

In doing so, you have lost my vote. In 2006, I proudly cast my vote for the NDP on principle. The NDP once stood up and demanded that minority voices be heard in parliament. But I see now that this principle has given way to the search for a few more votes, afraid of what giving the Greens a voice might do to your bottom line. So as it stands today, in 2008, I will cast my ballot for the Green Party — a direct response to your decision to put petty politics ahead of principle. I am not alone.

I will not waste your time outlining the reasons why the Greens deserve a seat at the table, but suffice to say — like it or not — the Greens are now a major player in Canadian politics. And as such, they deserve a seat at the table. Far from shying away, you should be eager to outline your differences. By refusing to debate, you look weak. Worse, you align yourself with a leader (Harper) who has shown outright contempt for democratic values.

It is my greatest hope that you will have the courage to reverse course, to listen to the thousands of Canadians of all political stripes who are outraged by the decision to deny the Greens a voice, and, in particular, the part you played in this injustice. With your participation, Stephen Harper will be isolated; if he refuses to debate when all other leaders will, it will to his detriment and to your benefit. It takes a strong leader to admit when he was wrong; given your campaign is built around “a new strong”, you would do well to demonstrate that strength.

Sincerely,
Gregory D. Morrow
DemocraticSPACE

Update: my fellow non-partisan James Bow finds himself in the same position.

Update: it seems that the heat Jack Layton has been taking is having some impact. Layton is backing down, but only because the “debate about the debates” is “becoming a distraction” (i.e. taking him off-message), not because he thinks he was wrong. Leadership is admitting when you were wrong.

9:58PM
DemocraticSPACE has seen enough. With just over 10% of the vote reporting, we believe that the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair will win Outremont. The race may tighten up, but the trend is clear.

9:58PM – POLLS REPORTING: 60/168
NDP / MULCAIR / 3335 / 48.4%
LIB / COULON / 2000 / 29.0%
BQ / GILSON / 636 / 9.2%
CPC / DUGUAY / 606 / 8.8%
GRN / PILON / 175 / 2.5%

Stay tuned…

So who is going to win Outremont today? The short answer is I have no idea (but it’s surely going to be either NDPer Thomas Mulcair or Liberal Jocelyn Coulon). Unlike general elections, where the vast majority of people vote by party (about 65% by party + 20% by party leader), by-elections are driven by the particular circumstances and personalities, because the government is not on the line, and often people like to send parties a message on specific issues.

What makes Outremont so interesting is that the NDP have recruited a well-known former Liberal cabinet minister as their candidate, in a riding that has voted Liberal since everyone can remember. Outremont is a pretty progressive riding, and includes part of the Plateau, my former neighborhood. There are a lot of well-established Jewish families and a growing number of nouveau riche, a younger group of affluent francophones. It is this latter group that has changed the make-up of the riding, to the point where it is no longer a safe Liberal seat. Indeed, the nouveau riche will determine the outcome of this by-election, since most of the traditional Liberal support will vote Liberal. The only question here is whether or not the Liberals have enough of their typically strong ground campaign to get out the vote. This is often very difficult in by-elections, and for that reason, Liberals tend not to do well in by-elections. This has much less to do with Stephane Dion’s leadership (as the mainstream media would like everyone to believe) as it does with the fact that the government is not on the line. The stakes are simply not that high for traditional Liberal voters.

What is clear is that many of the nouveau riche want to send the Bloc Quebecois a message that their progressive vote should not be taken for granted. Indeed, the BQ polled 29% here in 2006 and last week’s poll put them at just 14%. The NDP’s policy positions on many issues are not dissimilar to the Bloc, so it’s very likely that the NDP will receive the backing of a good number of Bloc voters. Given that this by-election won’t impact the BQ’s standing in parliament, many might be inclined to vote NDP this time.

A poll from last week showed Mulcair up 38-32 over Coulon. However, we also know that Quebec polls consistently under-estimate the Liberal vote by roughly 4 points. We also know the NDP is typically over-estimated by a couple points (as some Quebecers park their vote with the NDP). So the poll tells me that the Liberals and NDP were both really around 36% support last week. The NDP is out in full force, as a break-through in Quebec would be huge for the party. So, I don’t think the Liberals have an advantage on the ground this time.

It will be interesting to see how the two-person race impacts the votes of other parties. Quebecers like to vote for a winner. So expect the Conservatives and Bloc votes to drop even further. In fact, the Greens might even out-poll the Conservatives. If I were to venture a guess — and it is purely a guess, I might peg support at roughly:

COULON — 36-38%
MULCAIR — 36-38%
GILSON — 11-13%
PILON — 6-8%
DUGUAY — 6-8%
OTHERS — < 1% each

But in by-elections, it's anybody's game. Tell us what you think -- go to our OUTREMONT BY-ELECTION page.

Three of Ontario’s four parties have taken a clear stand on the issue of religious education funding. Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals (note: 538kb PDF file, p) support the status quo, which includes public funding for separate (Catholic) schools, home to 1/3 of Ontario’s students. John Tory’s Progressive Conservatives supports public funding of all private religious schools. Frank de Jong’s Greens support a single, secular public system, merging separate school boards with their public counterparts. But, to this point, Howard Hampton’s NDP has been strangely silent on the issue (indeed, with the writ set to drop tomorrow, the NDP has not yet released a platform or launched a campaign website, as the other parties have done). The last I heard, NDP party policy was in support of the status quo. Perhaps NDP supporters can explain what is going on.

I find it puzzling why the NDP has been silent on what is quickly turning into the defining issue of the campaign. Moreover, I find it odd that they have not taken a position similar to Greens. Indeed, party ideology/values would appear to support the Green position of a single public, secular system of school boards. Many of its members share this view. In fact, some local campaigns are ever promoting this alternative in the absence of a clear party position.

While the Greens have little to lose by calling for the abolishment of Catholic school boards — they can only improve upon their 2.8% support from 2003 by broadening their platform and appeal — such a call by the NDP does run the risk of alienating the 1/3 of parents whose children attend Catholic schools.

Still, strategically, adopting the Green position would provide the NDP with a position consistent with its values and a majority of its members views. And it would give Ontarians a clear alternative to the Liberal and PC positions, while preventing the Greens from siphoning some support from this issue (which might well happen if people feel strongly enough about it). In fact, without a clear position on the religious education funding issue, a greater risk for the NDP is that the election becomes a two-way race between the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives around this ballot question (after all, if the NDP and Liberal positions are the same on this issue, many prospective NDPers may opt to vote Liberal to prevent what they see as a dangerous result should the PCs form the next government). A bold alternative might be necessary just for the NDP to stay in the game…

Canadians are often proud that their political processes are not dominated by the vast amounts of money spent to influence voters in the United States. But Canadians would also be naive to think that money doesn’t influence performance here in Canada. So while our campaign finance laws limit the total money spent, it still plays a big role.

I will offer one example. Take a look at what was arguably the most competitive province in 2006 — British Columbia. Here is a comparison of the average money spent per riding and the average votes received per riding.

The Greens easily had the best bang for the buck spent — with each vote costing just $1.30. This differs considerably from the other three major parties, which ranged from about $2.98 for the NDP to $3.88 for the Conservatives. The Liberals were in the middle at $3.34 per vote.

Put another way — the Conservatives spent 21 times what the Greens did and received 7 times more votes. The NDP spent over 12 times more and the Liberals spent over 13 times more and both received about 5 times more votes.

It really begs the question: how well would the Greens do if they were as well funded as the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP?

Hats off to Paul Ferreira, NDP MPP-elect in York South-Weston. He is a good example of why perseverance pays in politics. I will admit that I was surprised that he won — despite the 40-point margin of victory in 2003, I figured it was going to be close, but I didn’t think he could put it off. But he did — by a razor thin 1.9% margin. So congratulations to Paul and his team.

Paul first ran as the 1997 federal NDP candidate in Brampton Centre, where he finished fourth behind the Liberals, Reform and PCs, capturing just 8% of the vote. Seven years later he was the NDP candidate in York South-Weston, finishing a distant second with 21% of the vote, almost 40 points behind Liberal winner Alan Tonks. He again ran last January against Tonks, with a virtual repeat performance, gaining 21% of the vote versus Tonks’ 57%. He then tried his luck in municipal politics last fall, running for a council seat in Toronto’s Ward 11, where he had a respectable second place finish behind incumbent Francis Nunziata, gaining 37% to Nunziata’s 50%. But his fifth attempt, Ferreira was victorious.

So, for all of the candidates who have tried and come up short, remember the words of advice that Ferreira is sure to pass along: perseverance pays in politics.

Lucille Broadbent, wife of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, has died at 71, after a lengthy battle with cancer. Ed did the right thing in choosing not to run in the January 2006 election, instead leaving politics to spent time with Lucille. Our deepest sympathies go out to Ed and the rest of the Broadbent family.

NDP Greener Homes Strategy Misses the Point
By Gregory D. Morrow

The NDP released Part 1 (“Greener Homes Strategy”) of its 5-part Green Agenda for Canada today. I applaud the NDP for making energy efficiency an issue at the Federal level. At this point, they are the only party seriously making noise on environmental issues in Ottawa, although that could change depending on the outcome of the Liberal leadership race. So far, the Conservatives have taken a page out of the Bush administration’s book — i.e. do nothing, and the Bloc Quebecois sold themselves out for a promise that Quebec would be taken care of “later”.

Unfortunately, the NDP plan isn’t very well thought out — and I say that as a progressive architect, urban designer, and urban planner who is very interested in promoting such a “Green Agenda for Canada”. Here is what the NDP proposes:

- Development of an advanced energy efficiency program to help make Canadian homes the most efficient in the world;
- Amendment of the National Building Code to legislate lower energy use in new homes;
- Making mandatory, in order to qualify for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Mortgage Insurance Program, proof of compliance with the new National Building Code’s energy efficiency provisions for new homes AND Establishing or enhancing other programs to assist Canadians in retrofitting older homes so as to meet the new energy standards;
- Requiring that all appliances and lighting sold in Canada meet the Energy Star standards; and
- Re-instatement of the EnerGuide program abolished by the Conservatives.

(more…)

NDP Must Return to Grassroots Organizing
By Gregory D. Morrow

In his classic study Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (New York: Free Press, [1911] 1962) [Note: 891kb PDF] Robert Michels argues that “organization is the weapon of the weak in the struggle with the strong” but also that “organization is … the source from which the conservative currents flow over the plain of democracy, occasioning there disastrous floods and rendering the plain unrecognizable.” ([1911] 1962, pp. 61-62; or pp. 19-20 in above PDF). In other words, any attempt to achieve social/political change will ultimately result in a form of organization that mimicks the very institutional structure it hopes to change. The logic, as summarized by Elisabeth Clemens in her 1993 article “Organizational Repertoires and Institutional Change: Women’s Groups and the Transformation of U.S. Politics, 1890-1920,” [The American Journal of Sociology, (98):3, pp. 755-98] [Note: 2.4mb PDF] is as follows:

1) hierarchical, centralized bureaucracies are the most effective form of organization;
2) consequently, existing political parties and institutions have adopted this form of organization;
3) in the course of pursuing their ends, oppositional parties will adopt the same organizational form for strategic reasons, even at the expense of their ideological commitments;
4) therefore, [this] will lead oppositional parties to become like established political groups, precluding the possibility of meaningful political change. (Clemens, 1993, p. 768)

This is precisely the paradox in which Canada’s New Democratic Party finds itself. A party whose origins are clearly tied to a populist and grassroots social movement has come to mimick the organizational structure of Canada’s two major parties — a centralized, bureaucratic and hierarchical structure that is viewed as the most effective means of organizing political action.

And this NDP centralization of policy and organization has not been without its successes when the Party finds itself with the balance of power in minority governments – a position that the NDP has enjoyed on a few occasions in its 40-year history. But Michels’ thesis illustrates the paradox faced by social movements such as the one that created the CCF-NDP.

In particular, he contends that by competing in elections, oppositional parties that are organized centrally would be drawn toward the political center and, thereby, moderate their radical goals. And if such actions don’t yield positive electoral results, he suggests that a party would subsequently adopt strategies that emphasize ideological purity or solidary rather than electoral advantage (1962, pp. 334-5). As Elisabeth Clemens explains, for a centrally organized revolutionary party, “the requirements of training cadres may well outweigh the advantages of a large membership” (1993, p. 766).

The NDP clearly suffers from this unfortunate paradox — a party of social change whose electoral results have never quite matched their high expectations (or popular support), which subsequently leads to a period of soul-searching in which the party seeks to differentiate itself further from its closest ideological rival, the Liberals. This cycle repeats more or less consistently following each election.

I would argue that this period of self-reflection would be more fruitful if, instead of it re-evaluating policy positions, the NDP re-evaluated the organizational structure through which party policy and campaign strategies are formulated. In a nutshell, I would argue that because the NDP has co-opted the hierarchical organizational structure of bureaucratic and centralized institutions (those used by the very political and corporate elites they hope to supplant), it has become not more, but less, effective at mobilizing its supporters. This leads inevitably to electoral disappointment.

To be sure, the NDP suffers from the injustices of an electoral system that necessitates concentrations of support over broad-based support, and surely the NDP must continue to fight for electoral reform to redress how votes are translated into seats. Yet the NDP executive must also re-examine its own institutional structure and ask itself whether a more decentralized, regional, issue-targeted and bottom-up organization wouldn’t be more effective at electing members to fight for progressive values. In other words, the current top-down structure — where policies are set by a central executive (and voted upon by the chosen few delegates who are allowed to attend the party convention) — represents a significant departure from the grassroots movement that gave birth to the Party.

Through a careful study of women’s groups in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries, Clemens demonstrates the effectiveness of women organizers in achieving social change precisely not by adopting a centralized hierarchical organizational structure but by drawing upon a multiplicity (a repertoire) of strategies that mobilized support around specific issues. The progressive movement of today could learn much from the women’s movement of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Clemens argues convincingly that “the chosen model of collective action shapes alliances with other groups and relations with political institutions.” (p. 771). For the NDP to offer Canadians a real alternative in Canadian politics, they must strive to return to a grassroots bottom-up form of organization.

I suggested in an October 5, 2005 article that the NDP adopt a “charrette” process to develop party policies – a process that has been pioneered in the urban planning field but has vast potential for arriving at solutions to broader issues of public policy. Feel free to read that article:

http://democraticspace.com/blog/2005/10/ndp-strategy-part-iii-develop-party-policies-from-the-grassroots/

This charrette process of policy formation and political organization would go a long way towards raising the profile of the NDP in local communities and illustrating to the population that a vote for the NDP is a vote for real change. Of course, this will necessitate a reversal of years of technocratic public policy analysis that has been characterized by “modern” methods. But it is necessary in order to engage citizens in crafting solutions to problems of the day. Increasing political participation cannot be limited to increasing the voter turnout at election time. It must strive to engage citizens between elections as well. One point of clarification: given that most voters (about 60-65%) cast their ballot on the basis of the party, rather than by party leader (20-25%) or local candidate (15-20%), it is important to recognize that the fate of local candidates is in large measure tied to the fate of the national campaign. The charrette process to which I refer is not meant primarily to address local issues (even though at its roots it is a local process), but rather what I am suggesting is adapting the charrette model to engage citizens in the formation of federal NDP policy – the full range of national issues from healthcare, to the environment, taxes, education, foreign policy, etc.

The recent defection and subsequent cabinet appointment of Liberal David Emerson to the Conservative cabinet (perverting the democratic will of constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway) and the appointment of the unelected Michael Fortier as Minister of Public Works (the department synonymous with the Sponsorship scandal) illustrates the undemocratic nature of the bureaucratic and centralized organizational structure of Canada’s elites.

If the NDP is to differentiate itself from the other main parties, it will not be on the basis of policy; rather, it will be on the way that policies and strategies are formed. In this, the NDP has the power to control its destiny. A return to grassroots through a charrette process of policy formation and political organization will send a message of real change, creating a platform that is not only for the people, but crafted by the people. Heeding the warning that Michels issued a century ago, and learning from the experiences that Clemens outlines from the women’s movement, the NDP’s best chances are in returning to grassroots organizing. It is through de-centralized, regional, and issue-specific organization, not through centralized, hierarchical and bureaucratic organization that progressive organizations such as the NDP can become, as Michels suggested, “the weapon of the weak in the struggle with the strong”.

Note: the two PDFs linked to this page (Michels and Clemens) are under copyright. By downloading them, you agree not to distribute or reproduce them in any form.