The federal Liberal government is in the midst of a deep crisis that looks likely to result in an early election call. If the polls are to be believed, it is the Conservatives who will almost exclusively capitalize on the Liberals tanking poll numbers. This raises the obvious questions, why is the NDP unable to make any headway in providing an alternative to the Liberal government?
The immediate reasons
The most immediate reason the NDP has been unable to capitalize on the deep unpopularity of Trudeau and the Liberal party is that in most people’s eyes the NDP has been seen as a partner in government. The last election saw the Liberals form a minority government, and within months the NDP entered into a confidence and supply deal that was supposed to run until 2025. This deal traded stability for the minority liberals for a set of promises by the NDP—including the introduction of the dental care program and pharmacare.
While the deal was not a coalition, in the eyes of most voters it was seen as such. The NDP has lashed themselves to the Liberal mast—despite its unpopularity (the Liberals formed government despite coming in second in the popular vote).
The confidence and supply deal allowed the Liberals to take credit for whatever was popular, while allowing the NDP to share the blame for anything that was unpopular. This includes the Liberals’ record of over-promising change and under-delivering. Remember, Trudeau was elected with a sweeping majority in 2015 because he was seen as someone who was going to bring change in a number areas such as reconciliation and climate. Instead Trudeau has come to symbolize an out-of-touch elite who is cozy with big business. The deal has meant the NDP has to wear this as well.
In terms of strategy, the confidence and supply deal failed on two significant fronts. It was unable to deliver anything significant or transformative in a timely political manner. It also left the Conservatives as the only viable opposition to the government. So when people ran up against a cost of living crisis or were upset with the government for any reason, the Conservatives became the only game in town for voters to park their support.
The NDP was afraid of another election after 2021, mostly because party leaders believed they were not in a place financially to run a viable campaign. So a deal was made—which the NDP touted as delivering substantive programs. However, it is a dubious argument to say that the only way to win pharmacare and dental care was to strike this deal. The NDP could have kept the pressure on to win these reforms without the deal. They may have gotten other wins too. Remember, the NDP abandoned EI reform in the deal—despite it being under review. The NDP could have used real leverage to squeeze out the much needed reforms to EI that the labour movement and others have been pushing for.
Likewise, it could have used its leverage to put more pressure on the government over migrants rights and its support for Israel. What was won—ten paid sick days for federally regulated workers and anti-scab legislation for federally regulated workers, the beginnings of a pharmacare program and dental care program—could have been won without the agreement. Many of these reforms came so late or were too piecemeal that they failed to be seen as significant for most voters.
The federal NDP’s position on Palestine has steadily improved since 2021. While not perfect the party has been an early and consistent voice for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid. However, this has has been undermined by two factors: the confidence and supply agreement that tied them to the Liberals, and parts of the party and labour bureaucracy that is trying to muzzle or curb pro-Palestinian voices in the party. Most of this happens during the nomination process—or at the provincial level, like with Sarah Jama. This has chipped away at the party’s credibility on being a voice for peace and human rights. Being tied to the ruling party’s support for Israel and the anti-Palestinian moves by some within the party has kneecapped the party’s ability to be seen as a champion of the movement.
Deeper problems
While these immediate problems are hurting the party, it would be a misunderstanding to assume that this alone is why the party is struggling. There is a deeper question about the state of the social democratic project.
Like other modern social democratic parties, the NDP has consistently been unable to offer alternatives to the current economic and political system. Gone are the days where social democracy was animated by a vision of collective democratic control over parts of the economy, advocating for an industrial strategy, funding a robust suite of cradle-to-grave social programs via progressive taxation, and being a strong voice for peace.
Part of the issue is that social democratic parties pursued an exclusive strategy of electoralism. This strategy sees only a victory in parliament as able to deliver changes. While the early Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF, forerunners of the NDP) did see themselves as a movement that aimed to transform mass consciousness through education and protest in addition to elections, by the 1940s this was increasingly abandoned. The party and its successor, the NDP, geared itself towards parliament. This meant pursuing strategies that could advance seat counts and votes. It integrated social democracy within the system, advancing an economic alternative was traded for managing capitalism. This was especially apparent in the rare instances where the NDP did win power provincially. While the NDP in power enacted some significant reforms in the provinces where formed government, it never advanced systemic alternatives. And often these reforms were balanced by attacking or pacifying the demands of labour.
The logic of parliamentarism meant tailing political and economic winds, not shaping them. This form of left wing triangulation could offer some substantive reforms when in the right context. But by the 1980s, the economic and political landscape in Canada and around the globe was moving right. This served to narrow the NDP’s political vision. Rather than talk of nationalizing industries and pursuing an industrial strategy of capital controls, the NDP adapted to the consensus. Tax hikes were limited, industrial strategy was reduced to subsidizing private corporations and participating in public-private partnerships, free trade was supported, social programs were to be improved but only within hard spending limits. The power of big business and financial institutions was left unchallenged.
The party itself has been increasingly professionalized and centralized. The participation of members is geared towards elections at the riding level and party conventions are reduced to symbolic gestures of party politics. Elected MPs, MPPs and their staff set the political priorites. The party is very focused on communications and still retains tight control over the nomination process. This has been the state of the party since the time of the Waffle challenge. While unions used to play more of a prominent role in the party, some unions still retain a decent degree of influence over its political priorities.
The truth is that the NDP has struggled to put forth a distinct political vision since at least the 1990s. Layton’s election as party leader in 2003 was the consolidation of a trend that saw the party integrate itself into the economic mainstream. This did not happen in a bubble, but was commonplace for social democratic parties in advanced capitalist countries, reflecting broader changes in the labour movement as well. Decades of big business attacks on workers’ living standards and rights put the trade union movement on the defensive. Labour’s ability to put forward an alternative economic vision for society was severely weakened. Unions pursued progressive competitiveness and concessionary bargaining, accommodating to the existing political and economic reality instead of challenging it. As a result, the layer of trade union militants with anti-capitalist understanding has been severely eroded.
What’s left of social democracy?
The NDP remains important for the left insofar as its historical ties, unions ties, and ties to the broader working class remain intact. The party is largely seen by voters and the media as on the left and representing a vote for workers. There remain many dedicated trade unionists and leftists in the party and it has demonstrated its ability to change political positions in response to the movements. But there are clear limits with the party. It is not a party that can function outside the electoral arena, nor is it a party that is capable of putting forward a real alternative. So what are socialists to do?
Those that assume the party can be changed from the inside or simply needs a new leader or more radical policies are misreading not only the party, but the political terrain upon which it operates. A new leader would be confined by the exact same conditions that present leaders face. New policies would not necessarily be more popular. Thinking that more left wing policies would automatically be popular replicates the tendency of parliamentarism, which aims to reflect working class opinion within the confines of the market rather than to change the political consciousness of the class. This is why people who think a more left wing social democratic party should be launched out of thin air are also mistaken. Ideas and a party have to have a social base willing to fight for them.
Social democracy is in a real crisis in Canada. It presents no viable path forward to address the systemic problems facing workers and the planet. It has been completely integrated into the project of managing capitalism, only offering advances for workers within the confines of the market. The level of political consciousness inside the labour movement, the most organized section of the working class, is very weak. Socialists who are fighting for more radical change are a tiny minority of the class. There is no quick fix.
Socialists need to find ways to relate to the NDP and those who vote for it, but they need to do so without collapsing into the party. The NDP’s politics can be changed up to a point, but this is best done through movements that aim to build popular support for these ideas in the class, not by aiming at the party specifically. But to go beyond the confines of a social democracy that aims to manage capitalism, we will need to truly pour our energy into raising the political consciousness of the wider class—through action and ideas.
At the start of the 20th century, social democracy trumpeted a bold political vision that sought to tackle the ills of capitalism. A hundred years later, that alternative vision lies in tatters. Social democracy offers no real alternative and is unable to deliver even modest reforms let alone address systemic issues like climate change. The fight to build a just world lies not in having a limited horizon of piecemeal reforms, but in building the consciousness and confidence of the working class to fight for a new world.
Did you like this article? Help us produce more like it by donating $1, $2, or $5. Donate
