The coalition was our coming out to the politics of change. An experience that, of course, has now been stuffed back in the closet behind the old hat. But those nine weeks of possibility that began one year ago stripped us of our innocence and showed that Canadian democracy can escape the limits of neo-liberalism that have constrained us for 30 years.
A number of anniversary memoirs of the coalition, created by Jack Layton, Stephane Dion and Gilles Duceppe on December 1, 2008, will appear this week. (The most fascinating so far is Brian Topp’s in the Globe.) Look for a lot of political history to tumble out of these accounts, and much of it will make a number of Liberals squirm when their commitment to a coalition, and their duplicity later, is revealed.
My recall of those heady days is mostly of the intensity and the optimism that took over amid a dizzying pace of events. There was an adrenalin rush, palpable in all my friends and coworkers, that came with the realization that the country could change before our eyes. A minority, extreme right wing government could be replaced by a majority coalition including five NDP ministers.
At first, reaction to the coalition was derisory: it will never happen. Then there were calls from Jack Layton -- this is real. Immediately, labour movement offices threw everything at the coalition.
There were urgent messages aimed at Liberals. There was intense debate over the program, and shopping lists and bottom lines submitted. There were communications to members, and mobilization for hurry up rallies. Labour leaders held daily conference calls; in my office we also held daily meetings and calls with other unions and NGOs.
We remember the high drama at Rideau Hall when Harper and the GG agreed to prorogue Parliament, and, needless to say, we will not forget the disappointment in Michael Ignatieff which began January 27 when he chose to vote for Harper’s budget and officially end the coalition.
Conventional wisdom has now returned to pre-coalition cynicism. But I prefer to ask, one year on, what did we learn?
I think we learned why progressives should favour coalition politics over the “big tent” strategy. In every case that I know of where social democratic or Liberal “big tents” have formed governments, they have implemented neo-Liberal policies, marginalized progressives, and shattered the hopes of social change activists. The coalition brought forward a program developed explicitly in opposition to the neo-liberal agenda at that time, and provided major roles and real influence for progressive voices. Yes, it is possible to achieve political breadth without eviscerating everything you stand for.
We also learned that Canadians are very open to coalition politics, provided that parties are open and transparent with them. One of the noteworthy analyses of the coalition was that original hostility to the coalition turned more favorable after a period of public discussion. Strategic Counsel polls for the Globe and Mail on December 5, 2008, showed 58% opposition to the coalition and 38% support. By January 15, support for the coalition had increased to 44%. An EKOS Globe and Mail poll published January 21, six days before the budget, showed support for a coalition government at 50%.
Unfortunately there are some lessons we didn’t learn, and for me chief among these is the centrality of Quebec for the future of the Canadian left. I was excited by the coalition, because it included the Bloc Quebecois. The coalition did not envisage Bloc ministers, but it did contemplate a working relationship towards shared social and economic goals.
There are some who see the relationship with the Bloc as the achilles heel of the coalition -- but I believe they could not be more wrong. First, there was no coalition possible without the Bloc’s support. Second, 80% of Bloc supporters in Quebec supported the coalition and showed by their support the possibility of a new unity between English and French progressives, and ultimately the basis for a truly representative bi-national Canadian government.
When Harper denounced the coalition by vilifying the Bloc and questioning the legitimacy of the confidence votes by Bloc MPs, it was one of the most ugly and divisive episodes I have ever seen in Canadian politics. It should have been forcefully repudiated, but it was not.
Of course, the big lesson not learned is that for the Liberal Party, the coalition was and remains for the foreseeable future -- the shortest and perhaps only route back to government.
A year later, an election now will return yet another minority government. Unless, there is a coalition.
Excellent article and some great comments. Thanks, Brother! Could not be more timely.
I understand your concern, Spector, however, in a coalition government, the NDP would be sitting at the table and could hold the fire to the Liberal's feet to some degree, however limited. In subsequent elections --whether won by a Liberal majority or by coalition -- the precedence of the NDP formerly having legitimate political power at the cabinet table would be set in the public's minds' eye. If the Liberals reverted to their old tricks, the NDP could be seen as waiting in the wings as a now credible alternative.
This is no small point.
There's a vast difference between that kind of realistic beginning to power -- however seemingly insignificant and slowly accumulated -- and the illusionary hopes of voters and social organizations who weren't paying close attention to Obama's non-agenda yet voted for him, regardless, or to the pipe-dreams of NDPers who think they can win it all by themselves.
It's just more lesser-evil politics.
Look where that's gotten the Americans.
I give Jack Layton and the rest of the NDP leadership full credit as negotiators and as politicians to strategically protect and promote progressive interests in the event of a Federal coalition.
I do, however find it hypocritical that Jack Layton and the NDP federal leadership actively opposed efforts in Alberta to explore the possibility of a pre-electoral coalition between the NDP, Liberals and Greens less than a year before the ill-fated federal coalition of 2008.
If the federal NDP is open to a parliamentary (as opposed to an electoral) coalition, that's fine, but let Albertan progressives follow the reasonable tactic of a strategic electoral coalition.
I too support the Democratic Renewal Project in Alberta and efforts to create a strategic electoral coalition between the NDP, Liberals and Greens.
What a load of utter nonsense!
If the so-called coalition had ever been allowed to govern, it would have been, in effect, a Liberal government headed by Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff. The Parliamentary "left" would in effect dissolve into the Liberal caucus, its leading members captives of the principle of Cabinet solidarity, while being outnumbereed and outvoted in Cabinet. The NDP would be bound by written agreement to give the Liberal government a blank cheque for 2½ years on Afghanistan, climate change, labour issues, and any other issues not expressly provided for in the coalition accord. In the subsequent election they would be in no position to criticize the government without being regarded by the electorate as rank hypocrites.
The Coalition was nothing but a way of implementing "strategic voting" by other means.
The anti-right faction is its worst enemy.
The greatest stumbling block to better government is that the majority of progressives from "center" and "left" parties stubbornly place their own partisan allegiances above the overall public good as a higher priority. Sticking with their individual parties' "better principles," they're unwilling to concede or understand that other progressive parties' platforms are often either similar to their own, or that in progressive coalitions (as is common and successful in Europe), centrist parties are usually FORCED to pull to the left.
I agree with your comments, Fred. It's true at the provincial level as well that a coalition of progressive forces would be more likely to provide a platform that rejects neo-liberalism and that then is implemented after an election. In Alberta, unless there is a pre-electoral coalition as opposed to simply a post-electoral coalition, change is impossible because the conservative forces are so large in this province.
We've formed a group in Alberta called the Democratic Renewal Project (drproject.ca) to unite supporters of the Liberals, NDP and Greens to work together to have only one progressive candidate per winnable riding in the province. We invite all Albertans who want to be part of the effort to get these parties (the Greens at the moment are more of an idea than a party in Alberta but will likely re-form as a party in the near enough future) to work together to end 8 decades of right-wing crapola to join with us.
Alvin Finkel