Thomas Mulcair has held the pole position from day one of the NDP's leadership campaign, and only looks to have entrenched that status as the candidates behind him have focused largely on trying to make the final ballot.
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
And that's much to Mulcair's benefit, as there's some significant reason for skepticism as to what he'd choose to do as leader of the NDP. On substantive policies he's mostly stuck to the contents of the party's 2011 platform, generally accompanied by messaging twists intended to make the policies sound like less significant changes than they ought to be. Which neatly fits Mulcair's "bring the centre to us" philosophy - but also risks falling into the trap in which a lack of anybody strongly pushing a progressive frame leads to a perpetual drift to the right.
Even more problematically, Mulcair has taken to talking regularly about substantially reshaping how the NDP operates - while being one of the few candidates who hasn't released a platform plank as to what his NDP would look like. Rob Silver notes the immediate ideological implications of Mulcair's call for a sweeping mandate to overhaul the NDP, but I'm equally concerned about the organizational ones: even if one doesn't think Mulcair himself is likely to substantially change the NDP's direction, a top-down structure which empowers the party's leader to exclusively define its priorities at the expense of members would create the conditions for full large-L Liberalization, with leader-driven factions rather than values defining the party.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
On the bright side for Mulcair, his political seasoning has been obvious throughout the leadership campaign. Mulcair hasn't only defended himself from challenges by competitors and outsiders alike, but has frequently made the attacks look silly: take for example his defusing in a matter of days a citizenship issue that dogged Stephane Dion for a substantial length of time.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
Meanwhile, Mulcair's greatest advantage is the fact that he's the lone candidate who can point to actual status as a household name and political rock star (at least in Quebec), rather than merely projecting how the public might come to see him. And he's done little to suggest he'll have much trouble extending that reach across much of Canada if he gets the chance.
Conclusion
I'll hope to see Mulcair expand on his plans for the NDP over the next few weeks, and may well see him as the best option by the end of the race if he offers some reassurances that his plans to modernize the party mean updating and strengthening its values rather than making them subject to leader-driven control. For now, though, Mulcair seems to be asking too high a price for his obvious political skills - and so I can't put him at the top of my ballot.
Greg said: "Mulcair himself is likely to substantially change the NDP's direction, a top-down structure which empowers the party's leader to exclusively define its priorities at the expense of members would create the conditions for full large-L Liberalization, with leader-driven factions rather than values defining the party."
ReplyDeleteI'm a new NDP member. So I only have the vaguest idea about how the party itself actually works.
But I don't think the NDP election platform is created by the whims of the leader.
My assumption has been that the platform is an implementation of NDP policies as decided by the membership.
If that is the case, then it seems that any "full large-L Liberalization" would actually be the result of the NDP's decision to remove unions special voting power.
Let's be clear, the NDP's main reason for existence is to advance heterodox economic policy (as embodied by Keynes, Ha-Joon Chang, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, etc.). That's the only way it distinguishes itself from the Liberal party - who share the NDP's social values, but subscribe to right-wing orthodox economic policies.
Unions have unique institutional & historical incentives to support heterodox economic policies. By giving them special voting status, the NDP created a built-in veto against opportunistic "carpet baggers".
For some pretty opportunistic reasons of their own, the NDP decided to switch to a pure one-member, one-vote system. The only reason this hasn't fundamentally altered the parties platform & values is because orthodox special-interests aren't sure if the NDP is the true alternative to the Conservatives.
Once those orthodox special interests decide the NDP is here to stay, you'll see them providing money & resources to those who wish to turn it into an orthodox establishment party. Without the Union veto, they will likely succeed...as they did with the Liberal party.
I would welcome more information on the NDP party structure & how its policies/platforms are actually decided...from Greg or any other interested commentator.
Dan: At the moment party members set policy through both freestanding resolutions and a policy manual which may be amended by membership votes at conventions. My understanding is that the campaign team already has a relatively free hand in choosing how to turn that policy manual into a platform for any given election, with some elements left out altogether, some emphasized, and some new aspects introduced which aren't inconsistent with the manual - and on that front the main difference between the leadership candidates might be the choices they make.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I should be clear that in talking about "priorities" I'm not only referring to platform development, but also organizational structure, messaging, and effectively every other aspect of party management. Going to your economic theme, I'd think that the NDP's membership is strong enough to withhold challenges to the economic philosophy at the party level regardless of whether unions have a separate voting status - but a closed-off leader's office is far more prone than the membership to see catering to corporate interests as acceptable and/or necessary in the interest of an easier, establishment-based path to power. And consequently, any plan to transfer influence within the party from the latter to the former is likely to produce important long-term consequences.
.
ReplyDelete.
Greg,
Thanks for the info on process.
And, yes, I see what you mean about the dangers of the "closed off" leaders office.
But my feeling is that the special union vote will:
(a) "Head off" any such corrupt candidate during a leadership contest (by forcing a vetting by unions)
(b) "Cut off" any corrupt leader who strays far from party policy (by ensuring future removal by dedicated members)
It's not a problem in this leadership contest. Unions still have a good influence by way of their history in the NDP.
But I can easily imagine a future where one-member/one-vote leads to an influx of new members for whom economic policy is a low concern.
In that situation, it's a certainty that a smooth-talking Liberal-esque candidate would pop-up & lead the NDP into the abyss.
Those concerned about economic issues would warn about his/her lack of grass-roots experience, vague speeches, & insanely high financial-sector funding.
Those warnings would fall on deaf ears as the new members focus solely on their own <span>niche interests & lusts for power</span>...ie. The Liberal Party model.
Again, this is all premised on my belief that the NDP is a heterodox economic party at its heart. I believe that Greg's concerns will only be validated if the party ceases to be such a thing...and instead becomes the free-for-all Liberal party.
You criticize Mulcair for "talking regularly about substantially reshaping how the NDP operates."
ReplyDeleteThere's an old adage, "If we keep doing it the way we've always done it, we'll keep getting what we've always got." My dad (a prairie preacher) would say that the 7 last words of the church (I say any organization) is "We've never done it that way before!"
The fact that Mulcair's policies reflect party policy shows a respect for our democratic party!
I think we're just scared of change!