Without a doubt this has been a tough year for the federal New Democrats. Public frustration with the prorogation of Parliament was short-lived, as were the New Democrats’ efforts to limit the prime minister’s power to recommend that the Governor General prorogue Parliament. Their uncompromising position on how the government should disclose details of the transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities by the Canadian Forces, though principled, got them left out of the agreement eventually reached between the Conservatives, the Bloc, and the Liberals. Likewise, their outrage about the government’s abolition of the mandatory long-form census was necessary, but hardly distinguished them from the Liberals.
However, there have also been signs of change for the New Democrats in the past year. Alongside the Bloc, they negotiated an agreement with the Conservatives to address the backlog of refugee claims. Jason Kenney, minister of citizenship and immigration, introduced a bill based on this agreement shortly before parliament rose in the spring. Recently, New Democratic leader Jack Layton showed that he was not only capable of negotiating compromise with other parties, but also within his own. Facing a caucus divided by a private member’s bill supported by the government which would have abolished the long-gun registry, Layton worked hard to persuade a few of his rural MPs to switch their votes, which saved the registry. The prime minister has promised that he intends to attempt a repeal of the registry, which will once again call upon Layton’s skills as a coalition-builder, both within his party and outside of it.
The New Democrats now face what will undoubtedly be another tough year. They will be continually confronted with the difficult choice of whether to cooperate with the government or whether to protest its decisions on principle. Both entail tremendous risks, but inaction is impossible. The year could be made much harder if there is an election. New Democrats are eager to see the party break the 43 seat threshold set under Ed Broadbent in the 1988 election. Not only would this prove that the party has moved decidedly out of the political wilderness of the 1990s, but it would lay the groundwork for the party’s more long-term goal of replacing a much weakened Liberal party as the official opposition. The challenge is that gaining those seats is going to require the New Democrats to stretch beyond their political heartland: a mix of traditionally working-class urban ridings and resource-centric rural ridings.
They will not be able to do so by sticking to their traditional strategy. Instead, they should seek inspiration in provincial New Democratic governments in Manitoba and Nova Scotia, whose leaders attempt to strike a careful balance between fiscal responsibility and social programs. Doing so is easier said than done, but if the federal New Democrats could draw on the experience of provincial New Democratic parties, they might be able to craft a new kind of political position, one characterized by fiscal responsibility, not for its own sake, but for the sake of protecting the social safety net.
This kind of principled pragmatism has long defined the party, even when its policy documents were dominated more by the language of socialism than of social democracy. Federal New Democrats have long tried to use these kinds of arguments to respond to those who warn that an NDP government would be irresponsible, but they have never adopted it as a platform centre-piece. Every party preaches fiscal responsibility in one form or another, but what could differentiate the New Democrats from other parties is that their objection would be founded on principle rather than political opportunism.
Such a change in the New Democratic approach would hopefully take place as a part of a broader discussion about aspects of its policies which have long kept away voters in the kinds of ridings that New Democrats need to reach and exceed their 43-seat goal. These include the influence of trade unions on leadership selection and policy, and the party’s position on Quebec sovereignty and on environmental issues. Only then can it hope to move from a party of protest to a party ready to help govern Canada.
