Can the NDP work with the Greens and the Liberals to Defeat Harper? (George Cromwell)
Canadian Dimension magazine, March/April 2007 issue
It is clear that in the November 27 London-Centre by-election, Elizabeth May drew votes from past supporters of all political parties, but especially from the NDP. With her as Leader, the Greens are increasingly likely to draw support from the NDP across the country. Through cooperation rather than competition, however, the prospects of both parties could be enhanced.
An obvious first step toward cooperation would be for the NDP to give its support in the next general election to Elizabeth May’s own candidacy, rather than running a candidate to oppose her. She may choose to run in Cape Breton or possibly again in London North-Centre. It is the NDP, which, from its better-established, more powerful position, should graciously initiate such a proposal. I hope the Green Party would reciprocate by supporting an NDP candidate in another riding.
This would be only a small first step toward the needed cooperation, however. It would be better still if the two parties could agree to run only one candidate in several other perhaps many other ridings, throwing the support of both parties behind each such candidate.
Sufficiently Similar Goals
I am aware that major difficulties stand in the way of such action. There are some policy differences between the NDP and Greens, and these have been emphasized in past election campaigns. There are fierce loyalties within each of the parties. There are internal disagreements within each party. Each local riding has an array of party activists whose views would be crucial in any decision regarding such cooperation. But the two parties have sufficiently similar basic goals that it should be entirely possible to achieve a significant level of cooperation enough to make it possible to give common support to one candidate in each of many key ridings. Planning for such cooperation is needed as far in advance as possible before the next election which means immediately.
I am not suggesting the parties combine into one. A primary goal of cooperation would be to achieve proportional representation in Parliament. After that, each party could pursue distinctive approaches with assurance that each would gain seats in Parliament in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Electoral competition would not be so damaging and cooperation could proceed within Parliament.
In the last general election, the NDP strategy was to focus a relentless attack on the Liberals, taking advantage of the infamous sponsorship scandal while giving very little attention to the grave dangers from the Conservatives, who are profoundly committed to pursuing deep integration with the United States. This means continuing to support U.S. military actions and supporting the corporate agenda, which includes increasing massive privatization, exploitation of labour and abuse of the environment here and abroad. No political party committed to an independent Canada and to an environmentally sensitive social democracy can afford to ignore this danger during an election campaign.
The NDP under Jack Layton’s leadership has been so focused on trying to displace the Liberals that it may be diverting attention from the greater immediate danger from the Conservatives. Next election this strategy might help Conservatives to continue to govern, and perhaps even to gain a majority, which could enable them greatly to accelerate the process of deep integration with the U.S.
Cooperation between Greens and the NDP might not be sufficient, however, to prevent the Conservatives from governing after the next election. Might there conceivably be some possibility that newly cooperating NDP and Greens might also seek some cooperation with the Liberals, running only one candidate in some ridings?
A Painful Case: The 1988 “Free Trade Election”
I recall that, during the 1988 election when “free trade” was the burning issue, Canadian Dimension, hardly a supporter of the Liberals, called for the Liberals and the NDP to run only one candidate in each riding. The Liberal-NDP rivalry prevailed, however, enabling Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives to gain a majority, with 47 per cent of the vote, and to push through the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The PCs, despite plunging popularity, left office with the even-more-damaging North American Free Trade Agreement essentially a fait accompli.
In that 1988 election it was the Liberal Party under John Turner that took the lead in vigorously opposing the “free trade” agenda. The NDP under Ed Broadbent, in the judgment of many NDP supporters, made a major mistake by remaining essentially silent on this crucial issue. Apparently there was a fear that emphasizing the same issue would lead voters to support the Liberals who would be more likely to win enough seats to govern. Perhaps the NDP strategy enabled it to win a few more seats that year, but a crucial battle was lost, and many people have been paying a heavy price.
The Liberal Connection
Judging from the stance of St phane Dion since he became leader of the Liberal Party, he will be stressing how his party’s platform contrasts with the Conservatives’ agenda. If the Liberals under his leadership operate according to the competitive logic that typically prevails in Canadian elections, they will try to convince voters not to split opposition to the Conservatives by voting for the NDP or the Green Party. Of course, NDP supporters have a deep mistrust of the Liberals, who allowed NAFTA to be approved in early 1994 and who severely cut social programs in 1995. The Liberals have all too often supported a damaging corporate agenda.
But Dion is a new leader, who strongly emphasized his concern for the environment in his leadership campaign. In response to a question at a news conference on January 18, he said that, during the next general election, May should be included in the televised leaders’ debates a position the NDP should already have taken. The possibility of Dion moving his party to some degree of cooperation with the NDP and Greens should at least be explored. Cooperation could be sought not only in order to head off a Conservative government, and to strengthen social programs and environmental protection, but also to enact proportional representation. Indeed the three parties might well make proportional representation the primary explicit goal of their cooperation.
Comment by Jorge Torrealba, writing from on August 7th, 2007 at 7:29 am:
I have proposed a temporary emergency solution to the opposition parties to be sure that in the next election Canada gets rid of harper. Here is the letter I sent to Dion, Layton and May:
Secretariat of Mr. Dion, with pertinent copies.
Respected Leaders of the Liberal, NDP and Green Parties,
Mr. Danny Williams, Hon NL Premier, has been eloquent in persuading most Canadian electors that in the next election the conservatives must be expelled from Parliament, because of their betrayal of Canada and of the rights of all Canadians. The majority favorable to contain the present conservative fraud is evident in every community, even if the corporate press hides the polls that demonstrate that the conservatives are around 10 points below the Liberals on the grass roots of the electorate.
The adoption of a Democratic electoral system of proportional representation will facilitate the objectives to:
1) Elect Mr. Dion as the Prime Minister because he is honest, has solutions for the problems and is capable to act and take decisions,
2) Give proportional representation in Parliament to the other democratic parties, the NDP and the Green, as members of the governing coalition, and
3) Give the Conservatives the Opposition with the number of MPs that corresponds exactly to the lowest percentage that they will receive in the next election.
The Opposition today which is presently a majority not counting the Bloc could pass a reform to the electoral system of Canada and achieve proportional representation in the House of Commons. There are many formulas existing in advanced democracies and the coalition of Liberals, NDPs and Greens could adopt the simplest which is the national percentage must be reflected in the final structure of the House.
For instance, in the next election nationally the Liberals may obtain 35%, the conservatives 30%, the NDP 25% and the Green 10% (I ignore the bloc for simplicity of numbers). If the House has 305 MPs, the Liberals would sit 107, the Conservatives 92, the NDP 77 and the Green would sit 30, which give 306 because there are no fractioned MPs. Well, the next Parliament will have 306 members. The leaders must now make a formal honorable agreement to go to the elections as a democratic coalition that would represent all Canadians. One week before the election, in every riding the three presidents must evaluate the status of the campaign, and withdraw the two candidates that are rated 2nd and 3rd in the coalition. The Conservatives who are destined to be the Opposition can do whatever they wish with their members. It will not affect the results and, in the example, will fatally get 92 MPs, probably none of them ex ministers, but new comers of the progressive wing of the party that today does not exist.
The coalition is an emergency in the present political circus. It must be a temporary, disciplined association of responsible political entities that go to the House to represent the Canadian people and to honor their electoral commitments by implementing the solutions that deserved the attention and the vote of the electorate. In that coalition the Liberals would have overall responsibility in Foreign Affairs, Trade, Defense, in ensuring the fiscal equality among provinces and territories, and would manage the standards of excellence of Medicare, Social Services and Education. The members in the Coalition are: 107 + 77 +30 = 214, and their percentages at the interior of the group are 50% liberal ministers, 36% NDP Ministers and 14% Green Ministers. The coalition must remain united and bonded until all the electoral promises have been implemented. After that, the parties may recover their independence if they so wish because the Coalition was temporary necessary to rescue the Nation from the catastrophe of Harper.
I am sure that the three political parties of this mythical coalition may think that I am dreaming in Technicolor. Those politicians in the three parties that could be considered statespersons may appreciate that either the political parties discipline themselves in a democratic coalition accountable to the electorate, or they will ruin the future by allowing the fraud of Harper to continue as cynically as is being paraded today. This is the only solution that will sustain the proposals of Mr. Danny Williams. Politicians must cut themselves to size: Global Warming demands statespersons. The demagogues of all the political parties in Canada (that are too many) are now a vanishing species.
You must all retain that the catastrophic political emergency is real as long as Harper is permitted to expand the fraud of his Government and that there is still time to approve in the House an electoral law that will give Canada proportional representation.
Respectfully,
Jorge Torrealba,
Halifax, NS.
Cc: The Three Leaders,
Mr. Danny Williams, NL Premier,
Presidents of the three political parties.
Comment by Jim Starrett, writing from Canada on September 7th, 2007 at 1:23 pm:
I have the feeling that many Canadians share the similar view that Stephen Harper must be banished into the wilderness of rural Alberta. How that is accomplished is another thing.
However, it is of utmost import that his government be defeated and unable to form a majority, which we now know could happen as early as the end of 2007.
Only by cooperation between the Liberals, NDP and the Greens can this be accomplised. Will there be the political will to accomplish this outcome?