Why Didn't the NDP Catch Fire?

TheTyee.ca

With Canada's 38th federal election now consigned to the history books, more than a few New Democratic Party supporters are expressing discouragement at the outcome.

Why, they ask, did the NDP fail to capitalize on Canadian voters' manifest discontent with the governing Liberals and opposition Conservatives? Why was Jack Layton, the party's effervescent new leader, unable to upstage a shaky Paul Martin and the robotic Stephen Harper?

Why did the promise-thick NDP platform not receive serious examination or consideration?

On its face, such criticism of the NDP's fourth-place finish in seats in the House of Commons (behind the Grits, Tories and Bloc Quebecois) appears churlish; for, in terms of both popular vote and seats, the federal New Democrats in 2004 have recorded their best results in a long, long while.

Look back: In the 2000 federal election, the NDP collected just 8.5 per cent of the vote. In this past election, that figure rose to nearly 16 per cent. This time, the NDP garnered more than 2,100,000 votes, as compared to their 1,000,000 votes in 2000.

The improvement was even more marked in British Columbia, where the New Democrats garnered a bare 183,000 ballots in 2000. On June 28, 2004, NDP candidates were supported by more than 457,000 B.C. voters.

Too, the New Democrats captured 19 ridings across the country, sufficient to win official party status. In B.C. alone they grew from two seats in the last Parliament to five in the next.

Enough seats to matter?

So, do complaints of a lack of electoral success by the federal NDP in 2004 seem unfair? Ignored, almost written-off in the 1990s, the New Democrats, it can be argued, have roared back into the thick of Canada's political scene in the first decade of the new century.

Fair enough. But it is also true that our nation's 70-year-old 'party of the left' once more will be shut-out from real power. Denied the keys to government, the NDP again must find solace in being able to influence others.

This could occur either through a formal arrangement with Paul Martin's minority Liberal government, or through moral suasion.

The NDP's presumed electoral gains in 2004, therefore, are relative. Compared to their Liberal and Conservative counterparts, the New Democratic Party is revealed as an also-ran, a ne'er-do-well to whom the top-rung of Canadian politics remains unavailable.

Must it always be so? Consider two points.

(1) Inclusive or exclusive?

The electoral success of B.C.'s Social Credit Party (in government from 1952-1972, and from 1975-1991) was attributed by W.A.C. Bennett, the first Socred premier, and by organizer and minister Grace McCarthy, to "making the circle ever larger."

In the United States, Ronald Reagan's Republicans (in the White House, 1980-1992, latterly under Reagan vice-president George Bush), espoused the philosophy of "having a big tent."

The idea was to build a political party which was 'inclusive'; that is, a party which cast a wide net to attract as many voters as possible; or, at least, enough to win consecutive elections.

While the Socreds and Republicans alike possessed firmly-held beliefs, especially on economic and fiscal matters, each party none the less showed remarkable flexibility on potentially-divisive social policy questions.

In contrast, the New Democratic Party, both in Canada and British Columbia, looks to many like an exclusive club -- in the negative, non-inclusive -- dominated by long-in-the-tooth insiders. The NDP seems to delight in making 'the circle ever smaller.' Theirs is a pup-tent, not a marquee.

Those who may disagree must ask themselves whether, over the last several decades, the NDP record has been one of attracting or losing high-profile members.

In B.C., two provincial NDP MLAs, Frank Calder and Al Passarell crossed the floor to join the Socreds. In the 1997 federal general election former NDP MP Lyle MacWilliam ran, and was defeated, as a Liberal. In 2000, former provincial cabinet minister Bill Barlee, along with three party functionaries (Bill Bell, Francesca Zumpano and Lee Rankin), ran for the Chretien Liberals. In 2004, ex-premier Ujjal Dosanjh, aide Shirley Chan and union president Dave Haggard switched allegiance to run for the Martin Liberals.

Another question: what visible efforts have the federal or provincial NDP initiated to adopt new, forward-looking policies, attract new members, or build alliances with new voting blocs?

A single example comes to mind: former federal leader Alexa McDonough's 1998 cross-country rail excursion to solicit input from Canadians. But her effort merely sparked resistance from party members opposed to the kind of innovation shown by Tony Blair's 'New Labour' strategy, which was implemented so successfully by Blair's more pragmatic, left-of-centre Labour party in Britain.

Not to say New Democrats need abandon their socialist roots or their commitment to social justice. But, today, to become politically marketable a party needs to be open to new ideas and new members. Today's NDP looks closed to both.

(2) The size of government

A century ago Canada's public sector represented less than 10 per cent of the overall economy as measured by gross domestic product. Then, the political left was in the forefront of public agitation for old-age and mothers' pensions; the abolition of child labour; regulated hours of work; government-funded health care, and much, much more.

At present the public sector represents approximately 45 per cent of Canada's GDP, and nearly all of those early demands for taxpayer-funded services have been met by governments of varying political stripes.

What then is the role for a left-of-centre party today? Is it to call for even more social programs and further increases in the size of the public sector, or is it to promise to be competent fiscal and economic managers if elected to government? To voters, the former may seem unaffordable, and the latter, uninspiring.

These merely are two of the most obvious challenges facing today's New Democratic Party. While the 2004 federal general election signals a restoration of sorts for the party's electoral fortunes, it also outlines the formidable challenges lying ahead if the NDP is to devise attractive policies and build on its electoral base.

Time will tell if New Democrats are willing make the tough but necessary choices if their party is ever to rise above third- or fourth-party status.

Will McMartin [email protected] is a political consultant who has been affiliated with the Conservative, Social Credit and BC Reform parties.