Is it Now Time for an Old Political Idea to be Revisited: A Partnership Between the Liberals and the NDP?
Photo Credit: The Canadian Cave of Coolness
Recent elections and polling indicate that two great Canadian federal parties, the Liberals and the NDP, are in real trouble and could continue to face irrelevance or even extinction in future elections. These are the parties of titans like Laurier, J.S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas, Pearson, and Trudeau, whose names reverberate throughout Canadian history.
Is it now time for an old and little known political idea to be revisited? Should the Liberals and the NDP consider some form of partnership? Having endured numerous unsuccessful election results, the Progressive Conservatives and various conservative splinter groups successfully entertained the thought of union, creating the Conservative Party at the federal level. Would the same type of marriage work for Liberals and the NDP?
The marriage between the Progressive Conservative and the Reform political parties was like a marriage between a wolf and a domesticated dog. They share a common evolutionary history, although there has been recent branching off from the evolutionary tree. Whatever differences that do exist, they are still genetically similar enough that they can produce progeny and get along reasonably well. Thus, the marriage of the two parties could and did occur. This union, which resulted in the Conservative Party, required a lot of compromise and effort, but a relatively happy marriage ensued.
A marriage between the Liberals and the NDP, on the other hand, presents some real difficulties. They do not share all of the same evolutionary history (although there has been some titillating exchanges of policies: e.g. Medicare, EI, bilingualism). Hence, a marriage between these two political parties would be like a union between a gorilla and a human. The two primates share physical and genetic similarities, but they still do not possess enough similarities to produce offspring and a happy marriage. However, childless marriages, marriages of convenience and shotgun marriages have occurred and still do occur. An unhappy marriage with the usual obligatory “keeping up of appearances” may be their only option. On the other hand, a few vibrant, satisfying and long marriages have started in less promising circumstances.
There is the political equivalent of common law marriage: coalition government. But as divorce lawyers and marriage counselors will also tell you about common law marriage: the life expectancy of coalition governments is usually not long. In both cases, it is a subtle way of keeping someone at a distance. That person (or party) is not quite good enough for marriage. Still, in some cases there are common law marriages and coalition governments that do endure. The two parties could strike a non-compete agreement in which Liberal or NDP candidates run in their own ridings without competition from the other party. This agreement may or may not allow cabinet ministers to be chosen from both parties, should one of them win an election. If these two political traditions are to survive, they may have to merge or at least learn to live together.
Who would be the matchmakers for a marriage? Bob Rae, who is now a Liberal MP, proposed the idea of marriage (during his estrangement from the NDP), and so has a number of journalists, academics and backbench liberals over the years. However, it appears to have been done mostly in whispers rather than with loud romantic pronouncements. This is also a real problem. Who has the credibility with both parties to get the ball rolling?
A less important issue right now is the name or acronym for the new party that would emerge from a marriage or an alliance. My suggestions include the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the Democratic Liberals (DLP), and the New Liberals (NLP).
In the arts such as poetry and the theatre, love conquers all. Politics is not unlike theatre, although in recent years it has become a somewhat crude facsimile of theatre. Rather than love conquers all, perhaps the old maxim, “politics makes strange bedfellows” applies. The very survival of the Liberal and New Democratic traditions may depend upon it.
Related posts:
- Envious Liberals & The Lack of a Game Plan Lately the Liberal party of Canada has displayed a funny...
- Unite the Left? Democracy is about choice. It’s about the right to look...
- Liberals Support Conservative Budget Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff announced today that he would support...
- Conservatives to Slash Public Funding for Political Parties On Thursday, November 27th, the Conservatives are expected to announce...
- Stephen Harper Has Proven Again That Political Experience and Political Toughness matters:Machiavelli Would be Proud In an earlier posting, I had discussed why certain politicians...
Tags: coalition government, liberal NDP partnership, Liberal Party, marriage, New Democratic Party
Loading ...
January 9th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
[...] Original post: Is it Now Time for an Old Political Idea to be Revisited: A … [...]
January 9th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Reddit by wicked_sweet: I’m not a fan of these partnership and merger suggestions. All it does is remove choice for the voters. I don’t want to get stuck in a situation like in the states where you either vote conservativ…
January 9th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
I would like to present a different analogy to the Liberal, NDP dichotomy: an old man and his young cousin. I think this analogy is more suitable. The Liberals have been a hallmark of the mainstream establishment in Canada since the Second World War. The NDP, on the other hand, came from the merger of the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federal), which in itself was a merger of farm labour movements, socialists and the League for Social Reconstruction. They largely exist as one (the old man) that tolerates the other (the young cousin). While there are portions of the Liberal party that are progressive, over the 1980′s and 1990′s, the Liberals moved so far to the left, that no commonality exists that could draw the two parties together. It may be unfortunate, but it is nonetheless true. Also, the core of the NDP would be wholly opposed to a merger and, unlike the PC’s; I cannot see a leader of the NDP who would ever favor a merger. Should it happen for political reasons? Absolutely. Will it happen anytime in the distant future? NO.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:36 am
A Liberal-NDP partnership doesn’t necessary have to be a united single party. Anyone who has ever followed a local race knows that within individual ridings the competition between the two parties is fierce, their voter base is distinct, and there is little chance that the merging of those parties would go over well. Let’s also not forget about the baby elephant in the room – the Green party – who actually do more to stir up animosity between the Liberals and the NDP than is ever reported.
My suggestion is this: sometimes the established parties (and that includes the Greens) need to swallow their pride. Sometimes it’s best not to run a candidate just for the sake of running candidates in every riding, especially when such candidate only serves to split votes among progressives.
In my old riding in 2008 the Liberals nominated a rather pathetic unknown to run, while the NDP stuck with the same guy they’d been running for several elections, and the Green party had a charismatic candidate who was making inroads amongst students and disillusioned former Liberals and NDPers. So what happened? Well the Conservative candidate won, naturally, with such a fine 3-party split among his opponents. It didn’t have to happen this way. If the riding associations for the 3 progressive parties came up with a transparent plan to form a partnership of some kind, and then only run 1 candidate on their behalf, the race would have turned out differently.
Old alliances don’t just die out. NDP, Liberal, and Green voters are distinct. In some cases, in some ridings, a temporary coalition between parties (a transparent coalition, NOT a backroom deal) would be the way to go.