Why social democrats should vote Green: from a former NDP candidate

My friends,

These are things that I needed to get off my chest. In my view, mudslinging is a practise of using non-substantive but perhaps sensational arguments to bring down an opponent, and in a way that is unfair. For example, perhaps someone's indulgences or lifestyle, or past or personality traits which are not really interfering with their role as public figures, but which can be used to bring them down. The subject of these criticisms are the substantive failings of the NDP, if there is bitterness in my tone, the bitterness is borne of real experience.

People who look at the truth of the NDP, who have been their supporters, have three choices. Try and reform the NDP from within (which many of my colleagues continue to try and do without success), vote them to insignificance in order to force them to reform (as the PC party had to), or look to a fresh party that has values of social justice, ecological wisdom, peace, participatory democracy, sustainability and diversity.

What struck me as a candidate leaving the NDP and thinking about the other party (Greens) that has been with me in tandem for more than a decade, was the performance of the Greens on issues that go to the core of democracy, as compared to the NDP. In the same way, I could look to the United States nine trillion dollar public debt, compared with the strong economic performance of the EU, and argue that the EU has a far better fiscal policy. These are judgments we come to based on the evidence.

In politics, there is loyalty that prevents people from seeing the truth. I could fill many blogs with stories of how the party's internal performance eroded my loyalty. But the comparisons I'm making here, are on criteria which can be compared objectively for the most part(the Green's do publish their policy, NDP does not, for instance), that go beyond my personal experience, and I provide evidence to back my claims. In a sense, part of my purpose is to be a whistleblower for those who have illusions that the NDP is the right party to lead this country, or even the opposition.

The claims for comparison were on the issues of transparency, participatory democracy, the NDP's presidential leadership style, the NDP's forsaking of the non-working poor (who don't tend to vote in large numbers), corporatization of NDP's marketing and communications (I received automated fundraising voice-mail messages, for instance), and basically a culture among the party core where long-time staffers are burnt out and cynical, and where the cynicism has meant an expedient politics. This is in contrast to the visionary and constructive politics that marks the Green Party.

The core arguments here are solid, true and substantive and I stand by them. Elections can be tough, and NDPer's are going to repeat the mantra that Greens are right wing, because if there is anything that will scare an NDP supporter, it is right-wing politics - hard to blame the voter when Harper represents this! Is there any substance to this argument? No. The Greens differ from the Cons on virtually every issue - drug policy, environmental policy, social policy, internet and copyright policy. The Greens 'fair trade' free market economics is quite different that the Cons 'wild market' that turns a blind eye to human rights, labour, environmental and equity issues. The NDP occupies a competitive space with many of our policies, but have the NDP explained a comprehensive logic to their platform? Or are most of their positions 'good guy' positions without a logic of implementation? Moreover, is the NDP as a party healthy, inclusive and participatory? the answer is no. For a party that espouses social democracy, the lack of internal social democracy is an issue of hypocrisy. The party does not walk the talk.

I realize that some may argue that the NDP's problem is that social democracy is wrong. I believe, however, that social democratic principles, should they be applied through process and policy, are good and very close to the Green party. The proposals of the international reformist movement, as articulated by people in the UK such as David Held and Jan Aarte Scholte, are very similar to Green social and economic policy. The reformists are gaining ground on the neo-con/neo-liberal hegemony on macro-policies of globalization and are the closest to replacing them, and many proponents are described as international social democratic and at the same time, the environment is first on the agenda of international reform. It is also likely that in a democracy, having a spectrum of ideas is healthy, from conservatism, to liberalism, social democracy, marxists etc. In Europe, social democrats and greens are always the most likely to form coalitions. There are two situations that would have to change in order for us to be in that position. The first is clearly electoral reform, and the second is for the NDP to have a renewal. I don't think they are really even very aware of the international social democratic green movement, and they don't seem to even fit.

In reality, policies flow from hybridization and synthesis of ideology, and yet only the Green Party gets the reality of this and avoids ideological boxes. However, the argument that liberalism, social democracy, deep ecology or even conservatism as ideologies or theories, are wrong, are perhaps questions impossible to answer empirically because people will not agree on the assumptions from which a test could flow. The question of whether people are consistent with their principles, is a matter of falsification and easier to test.

The very least the NDP could do, is to be consistent with their support for representative democracy and electoral reform (under which conditions the Greens would have seats and be represented in debates) and support, even vigorously, the inclusion of Elizabeth May in leader's debates. The fact that they do not, is hypocritical. For some reason, NDP supporters are given to ignoring this hypocrisy, they themselves have fallen into the trap of caring more about winning, then process. Does winning matter, if hypocrisy is needed to win it?

What I hope from this is a warning. I think the Greens will succeed in gaining momentum and ground in Canadian politics. In a sense, my critique of the NDP can in fairness be joined with a critique of the Greens, though the critique of the Greens is not a consequence of their choices, but a consequence of being new. If anyone knows Zygmaunt Bauman, I'm about to lift one of his ideas and put it in a different context. Bauman talks about the 'tourists' and the 'vagabonds' in the context of globalization and migration. In this conception, mobility has more status than roots in contemporary globalization. 'Vagabonds' are one's left behind, tourists are the ones who can come and go, an intellectual elite that is globally connected and mobile. The NDP are the vagabonds. The Greens have not yet had elected MP's, and have not seen the party dragged through the Parliamentary mud, and unkown to us are when policies backfire, when we are criticized in power for real outcomes of our decisions, fairly or not. The NDP have had their best policies implemented by other parties - the Human Rights Act, Medicare, pensions etc. They haven't had federal power themselves. They got left behind, and they also sold out.

The Greens are the tourists. We have the luxury of critique from the outside, and we attract intellectual elites, cutting-edge thinkers and highly-educated people. The policies are spot on, but the party is untested. We haven't had the chance to be left behind, or sell out.

Perhaps the discussion raises the question of whether the ideals of participatory democracy and the values and principles of the party can endure success, power, tough electoral fights, seat wins, controversies, scandals, losses.

What I've found in Greens is a genuine politics, an authentic politics, and I believe that there are risks to losing this - power corrupts, as they say. Sometimes it is the wayward path of others that teaches the straight path for ourselves. Not a path of perfection, but one of authenticity which doesn't forget that seven generations are at stake, and that doesn't forget that integrity of process, of means are as important, perhaps more important than ends.

So yes, we will face mud. I hope we do not get into extraneous attacks, but focus on substance. I hope that we can praise other parties when they do the right thing, but we must be ready to criticize forcefully and hold them to account. I believe what a party needs most is humility, the ability to reflect and self-critique, willing to be held accountable to its principles. No other party in Canada does that. The other parties behave like disordered personalities, hyper-critical of others, selfish, unable to praise others, defensive and unable to see their own faults. Canadians are desperately looking for something that isn't more of the same. The Greens are doing this now, can we sustain it through success?

As I said. These were things to get off my chest! I promise that the NDP will not be the main subject, now that I've said what I had to say.

many, many thanks for your comments!

Arif Jinha

Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu,
Buddhist, sufi or zen
...only that breath breathing human being
(credit of my signature goes to rumi's poem).