NEEDED: A 'BACK TO REGINA (1933)' MOVEMENT IN THE NDP

Fellow NDP members,

On the eve of our Federal Convention in Halifax, we write to inspire debate in the party we know and love. Our intent is to create respectful discussion about the road ahead in these tough economic times.

We think a spectre is haunting those seeking to drop the “N” in NDP – the spectre of democratic socialism. For us, those behind the “name change” seek a shift to the political centre, but this is at odds with the legacy of Tommy Douglas, J.S. Woodsworth, and Stanley Knowles.

As was the case at our 1995 Federal Convention, a debate is urgently needed about the way forward. This debate will likely happen throughout Convention, but most notably if the “name change” issue hits the floor. Though seemingly trivial, such a discussion addresses core issues of our party’s identity and purpose. 

Will we lurch to the right to win votes (in a US “Democratic Party” mould, without the “N” in NDP)? Or will we voice the concerns of everyday Canadians, and speak truth to power?

Will we be limited by pundits and PR consultants, and fit an orange NDP chair into Ottawa’s existing political furniture? Or will we champion the socialist values that inspired the fight for medicare, unemployment insurance, and public pensions?
.
This short article offers a contribution to that debate. At a time when capitalism suffers its worst crisis in decades, when tens of thousands have lost their jobs and pensions, when equal rights are still denied to many Canadians, when climate change grips the planet, and when wars are waged for a privileged elite, a case is made for a “Back to Regina (1933)” movement in the NDP.

In doing so, we urge a return to the core demands our predecessor, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, espoused in their Regina Manifesto of 1933:

1) A planned, democratic and participatory economy (our definition of socialism) to replace chaotic, elite-led, destructive capitalism;

2) Justice and dignity for all Canadians; and

3) A commitment to these principles beyond our borders. Or as J.S. Woodsworth once put it: “What we desire for ourselves we wish for all. To this end, may take our share in the world’s work and the world’s struggles.”

We have created this blog to make our case. We invite you to visit, share this information with others, and offer comments of your own.

Now we turn to two broad choices before our party. Please read on!

CHOICE #1: RUNNING TO THE MIDDLE

The first choice – running to the middle – is clearly favoured by many federal NDP leaders, and likely several others across the country.

In the 2006 federal election, this involved urging Liberals to “lend us your vote”. In the November 2008 federal political crisis, it meant backing a proposed coalition government with little to show for it (e.g.: nothing to create good jobs or protect pensions; no substantial EI reform; no meaningful action against climate change; and no commitment to end the “mission impossible” in Afghanistan).

The high-profile speakers slated for the Halifax Federal Convention reinforce this strategy. Among them are Darrell Dexter (recently-elected Premier of Nova Scotia), Gary Doer (current Premier of Manitoba), and Anita Hill (Director of Communications of Obama for America). These are decent people who all share one thing in common: they won elections by running to the middle, and reaching for centrist votes.

Brother Dexter has pledged to keep “balanced budgets” at a time when even Stephen Harper thinks deficits are necessary. Though we hope otherwise, this is will surely limit what the NDP can and will be able to accomplish with its historic victory.

Brother Doer’s strategists openly boast about “stealing issues” from right-wing critics to “inoculate themselves” against opposition. Over three consecutive majority governments, this has meant little reform on core labour rights, environmental protections, and, like the Nova Scotia party, a commitment to uphold “balanced budget” legislation left over from the Filmon years.

Sister Hill is perched atop a huge political machine, arguably the most sophisticated since Tammany Hall ruled New York. And yet, this machine’s leaders are now gaining notoriety for stalling key campaign promises (e.g.: “public option” health care, “card check” union certification, or due process for Guantanamo Bay Prison detainees) given howls from right-wing Democrats and big business lobbyists.

In each instance, the aim is political power, but the principles behind it are unclear. Lofty promises are made in language usually aimed to offend no one, particularly power brokers in Wall Street and Bay Street. The goal, as Tony Blair once put it, is to espouse social-ism over socialism. Position oneself as the champion of the everyday person, but leave the unfair structure of Canadian politics largely intact.

In a pure electoral sense, however, running to the middle sometimes works. One can win elections by posing progressive ideas that don’t anger the powerful or annoy centrist voters. The bravest proponents of this strategy can even implement a few important reforms like freezing tuition fees, ensuring partial or full sovereignty to First Nations, or implementing anti-scab legislation. This, we believe, is our party’s story in provinces where it has had electoral success.

But electoral success does not automatically mean progress, or efforts to build a party that can win the respect and admiration of Canadians. Election results are snapshots in time, and an understandable cynicism builds when key promises aren’t met.

When key promises aren’t met, Canadians tune out of political life altogether, leaving the field open to spin doctors and image consultants. The content of politics gets hollowed out, and elections become personality contests with empty phrases.

Stories get written about sweaters and the family lives of party leaders. This is great stuff for mindless television, but pitiful junk food for any healthy democracy. Voters have every right to ask: what’s the purpose of seeking power if one has little to show for it?

This was not the approach used by the CCF when it sought to build a force for social change in the 1930s. Indeed that party’s very identity and leaders rose to fame by challenging the irrational logic of capitalism, and supporting core socialist principles. They believed in things that weren’t immediately popular to everyone. Their ideas and activism help define the political achievements that came later.

We stand on the shoulders of these early CCF leaders. We therefore propose a second choice to party members for the road ahead: a “Back to Regina” (1933) movement to rediscover our roots and social purpose.

CHOICE #2: BUILD A 'BACK TO REGINA' MOVEMENT

To fully understand this choice, it is worth drawing historical parallels to the challenges we face today.

In the brutal years of the 1930s, when millions of unemployed Canadians sought justice during a previous recession, they boarded trains and headed to Ottawa. The 1935 “On to Ottawa Trek” and other campaigns in this period defined a new generation of activists.

Two years before the CCF championed this moment, and called for fundamental change to the capitalist status quo. As the early words of the Regina Manifesto read:

"We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible."

Fourteen points followed this declaration of intent, with reforms proposed to (among other things) finance, agriculture, labour rights and external trade. At the core of Manifesto, however, was a commitment to economic democracy, individual liberty, and peaceful resolutions to global conflicts.

Today, with global finance run amok, with resource wars guised as “development” or “democracy promotion”, when too many suffer given their race, gender, sexuality, or religious beliefs, these commitments must be maintained. The NDP needs a political strategy to ensure this happens. Such a strategy must prioritize a redistribution of wealth, and a rebalancing of our democracy.

Several Latin American nations have already embraced these priorities, creating the chance for democratic renewal from the bottom-up. Many European countries have parties within them calling for this kind of fundamental change. The NDP should be the voice for this kind of project, and it should draw on the Regina Manifesto for inspiration.

To rediscover these roots, it’s time for a new trek, but not an “on to Ottawa one”. We fear our party has “found Ottawa”, become ensnared in its mediocrity, and has suffered for doing so ever since.

Our leadership’s ongoing quest for mainstream legitimacy has led them away from our party’s core values. We need a new definition of “success”, a new kind of “leadership”, and a firm commitment to ensure NDP members are actively involved in making these happen. In the 2006 federal election, the party’s platform was released a week before the vote. Such centralized control weakens the party, and makes us unprepared for the inevitable attacks mounted by political opponents.

“Running to the middle” will only make existing problems worse. Winning elections by shifting to the right will not bring about the change Canadians deserve. For this reason, we propose a “Back to Regina” movement to renew, reshape, and revitalize the NDP.

OUR INTENTIONS

Given the experience of previous NDP reform movements, it’s important to be clear about what ours aims to achieve. Three points are worth highlighting in particular as this movement gets underway.

First, the “Back to Regina (1933)” movement will engage all party members with the respect they deserve. It will not browbeat people, or engage in finger-wagging against those deemed to have “sold out”. That kind of posturing is not helpful, and it will not help the NDP rediscover its core values. Those seeking to “mainstream” the NDP have every right to do so, and we have every right to do otherwise. That is the nature of a healthy democracy.

Secondly, this movement is not about aiming for the leadership of the party, or “taking over” riding associations. We are thoroughly committed to bottom-up democracy, and aim to promote alternative ideas within the NDP at all levels.

Lastly, this movement will build a bridge between the NDP and progressives that currently stand outside it. To those who say our movement is pointless, we ask you to consider what the alternative is for the 2.5 million Canadians who voted NDP in the last federal election. These Canadians, in our view, want principled leadership and vision in tough times.

The Left outside the NDP, particularly those active in the peace and global justice movements of recent years, have made important contributions. It is time for these activists to reshape the party that needs them now more than ever. It’s time to build a “Back to Regina” movement in the NDP.

For us, Tommy Douglas’s words have never rung more true:

"Courage, my friends,’tis not too late to make a better world."