Naturally, Jack Layton's leave of absence has raised plenty of speculation as to what will happen on Canada's opposition benches over the summer (and perhaps beyond). But Tim Powers hints at what may be the most interesting question to watch in the months to come.
Most of the time when a political party ends up under interim leadership, it's because events have conspired to rob it of any ability to develop or execute a long-term plan. And indeed, the Libs are in that situation for the third time in just a few years.
Like Bill Graham and Stephane Dion (post-2008 election) before him, Bob Rae's ability to substantially set his party's direction is significantly limited by the expectation that he'll hand the reins to a new leader in the relatively near future. In effect, Rae can't rely on the past planning of leaders who have been unceremoniously turfed - but nor can he afford to take any substantial risks or strong positions, lest he be seen as limiting the choices the party may want to make in the next couple of years. Which means that Rae - though perceived as a stronger politician than most interim leaders - is stuck acting more as a caretaker than a planner and decision-maker.
In contrast, there's no reason to think there's any particular desire within the NDP to substantially change course at a time the strongest leader in Canadian politics is sidelined temporarily. And so Nycole Turmel's role as the NDP's interim leader figures to be primarily to execute the plan that's been developed by Jack Layton and a strong team of advisers over a period of nearly a decade.
Which makes for a rather neat opportunity to test the comparative effects of two traits which are normally difficult to separate. If the Libs manage to make up ground on the NDP, that will speak to the importance of a well-recognized leader with extensive political experience. Or if the NDP holds its own, then we should be able to conclude that a strong plan and vision for a party's future ultimately mean more than the face of a single leader. And both parties will want to pay close attention to the results as they determine how to position themselves for the next few years.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
With the unexpected events of the last election, I wonder how many of those plans still apply? Fortunately the reason those plans don't apply is because the goals of accomplished or exceeded, so they are in very good shape.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's possible that if the NDP continue to make ground on the Liberals, part of the credit will go to differences in party culture. The Liberals of late years have looked like an exaggerated version of the Progressive Conservatives in times past: Obsessed with internal infighting, even willing to sabotage the party's position in the broader political contest if it meant gaining advantage within the party. It all started with Paul Martin, who looks inoffensive and is a lousy campaign politician but by all accounts was an effective and ruthless backroom man, and gradually built his own organization in the party to topple Chretien.
ReplyDeleteThe NDP tend to come across much more unified, the main motivations of party actors having been the advancement of the party and/or a more-or-less left ideology. No doubt there are people with ambition, but you don't see the knives coming out. There's an impression that people pull together for the sake of the bigger task, and probably don't accept people whose ambition manifests in a destructive way. The Cons in the Harper era are also fairly unified, although the impression I get is that it's more due to a top-down "iron fist in the iron fist" kind of management style.
At any rate, if the Libs continue to concentrate on stepping over each other's bodies, that's another advantage for the NDP, whose main internal disagreements are ideological and not hostile enough to sabotage it as an organization.
I wouldn't think there would be too much need to change course, particularly given that Layton has had a couple of months since the election to modify the plans as needed. The election results may have gone further than expected, but I can't see them as being out of line with the NDP's long-term (and long-time) plans.
ReplyDeleteAbout all I can disagree with is "it all started with Paul Martin", as my understanding is that the divisions go back further than that. But it's certainly worth keeping in mind that relative unity and cohesiveness as part of the NDP's advantage.
ReplyDeleteWell, you may well be right about older divisions. Come to think of it, there was a Chretien/Turner split back in the day, and so on and on.
ReplyDelete