The history of the New Politics Initiative: Movement and party, then and now

| November 29, 2011
The history of the New Politics Initiative: Movement and party, then and now

I. A short history of the NPI

The New Politics Initiative was formed in the spring of 2001. At that point in time, new forms of grassroots progressive organization were on the rise -- represented most energetically by the anti-globalization movement (which, in retrospect, reached its apex in Canada at the Quebec City protests that April). But that energy and hope was not reflected in the left's electoral fortunes, which at the time were depressed. For example, the NDP had endured three consecutive poor showings in federal elections. The movements and the party seemed headed in different directions.

Outgoing NDP Leader Alexa McDonough launched a party renewal exercise in 2001 (echoing a similar review that took place in 1994). It seemed to many of us that the left needed an electoral party with closer links to the new energy in the grassroots social movements, to better unify our efforts, push our demands, win converts, and fight for change -- both inside parliament, and outside. The NPI thus launched a proposal that the NDP reconstitute itself (in active cooperation with other organizations and progressive parties) as a broader, inclusive, more movement-connected party.

The NPI's work was organized around a resolution submitted to a special NDP convention on party renewal that was held in Winnipeg in Nov. 2001 (culminating McDonough's renewal exercise). In the lead-up to that convention, NPI supporters had argued -- both within the NDP, and outside of it -- for a "new politics," linked more organically to social movements, and reflective of a more participatory, dynamic democratic process. Our thinking was that social change does not come solely, or even primarily, from electoral campaigns. It comes, rather, from deeper shifts in popular consciousness, ideology, and organization. That's why progressives must be campaigning on progressive issues, and working to build progressive structures of engagement and democracy, all the time, not just during elections.

Indeed, we argued, the success of progressive political parties ultimately depends on whether we are winning that day-to-day battle of ideas in society, and on our success in building alternative structures and capacities among the whole spectrum of communities fighting for social change. Without social movements, trade unions, environmentalists, feminists, queer activists, anti-racist organizations, civil libertarians, and all the rest striving to raise issues and win converts, progressive politicians don't stand a chance come election day. And even if, by fluke, they did happen to win (perhaps because of how the votes for other parties broke down), their power to implement progressive promises is utterly compromised without an aware, mobilized, demanding population behind them. We've learned that painful lesson many times.

The NPI was endorsed by close to 2,000 individuals and organizations, many of whom were NDP members, but many of whom were not. In addition to progressive NDPers, NPI support came from a wide range of other grassroots organizations, other movements, and even other political parties -- including Greens, revolutionary groups, and the Canadian Action Party. The NPI organized meetings and consultations in cities across Canada. At the NDP convention, it organized an NPI caucus. It also sponsored an electrifying town-hall meeting and rally the night before the NPI resolution was debated -- which still ranks in my mind as one of the most hopeful and thrilling political events I have ever attended.

However, the NPI's resolution was defeated the next day by delegates to the NDP's special convention, by a margin of 63 per cent to 37 per cent. Coincidentally, that was exactly the same margin of defeat when Jim Laxer, on behalf of the Waffle movement, challenged for the leadership of the federal NDP 30 years earlier, in 1971. Indeed, the Waffle and the NPI reflected many similar themes and concerns (although the language, constituency, and style of work of the two movements differed considerably, given the changing times); several former leaders from the Waffle were among those who endorsed the NPI.

Following the NDP convention, the NPI continued to organize local consultations and other activities for a couple of years, but the focus of its work was not clear, and the political environment was becoming more hostile (in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent decline of anti-globalization struggles). The NPI opted to formally dissolve at a final conference in Toronto in early 2004.

II. Movement and party today

The NPI was founded as a result of the diverging trends of movement and party at the turn of the century. It is interesting to look back over the subsequent decade, and review how the relationship between the two sides of the left has continued to evolve.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and resulting anti-democratic repression, the anti-globalization movement (a major inspiration for the NPI) and other grassroots movements slowed down. Meanwhile, Jack Layton's election as NDP leader reflected a more movement-connected perspective on behalf of the party leadership. Though he didn't endorse the NPI, he seemed sympathetic to many of its ideas and goals, and he worked closely with MPs Libby Davies and Svend Robinson (two of the NPI's co-founders). On the other hand, Layton's "job" as leader of an electoral party meant that electoral calculations still naturally dominated his decision making. When the NDP brought down the Paul Martin minority in late 2005, sensing a chance to win seats, Stephen Harper's Conservatives got their foot in the door.

In 2008 the global financial crisis hit. Initially, Canada's Conservatives were on the defensive -- sparking the famous but short-lived effort by the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition to unseat them from power. The idea of progressive electoral coalitions fits naturally with the NPI's view of politics -- although this one quickly failed, largely (I would suggest) because of the inability of grassroots movements to mobilize sufficient mass support for the idea, as well as because of the Liberals' internal incompetence. Harper got another chance, and began to slowly, carefully consolidate his power. Subsequently, as the after-effects of the global crisis continued to wreak widespread misery, the right seized the political initiative more effectively than the left. (Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine precisely explains why and how.) Then came another federal election, and here we are.

The dichotomy between movement and party was surely never more striking than on election night, 2011. As New Democrats wildly celebrated their stunning rise to Official Opposition, most movement activists were distraught over the prospects of a Harper majority and what it would mean for our society. How will we now stop Harper, and (more importantly) everything he stands for? Having effective and progressive spokespersons in Parliament will help, of course, as will presenting a credible electoral threat to Harper in 2015. But that won't remotely be enough. Even more important, we must have large numbers of Canadians able and willing to complain, agitate, organize, and demonstrate. Articulating demands, writing letters and lobbying, educating our neighbours and members, hosting public meetings, producing credible progressive research, organizing increasingly forceful protests: that is the bread and butter of social movement organizing. If it isn't happening (and in recent years, we haven't had nearly enough of it), social change will not occur, because Canadians won't be excited or organized enough to demand it.

Electoral parties don't usually do that kind of work. They focus, rather, on fine-tuning a message (backed up by effective electoral machinery) in order to appeal to a larger slice of the existing spectrum of political opinion. The goal of social movements, in contrast, is to change those opinions.

So without activists successfully pushing the goalposts of commonsense popular consciousness, any electoral party will tend, by default, to be obsessed with refining its message and image so as to broaden its appeal within status quo politics. Indeed, as official opposition, the federal NDP is quite likely to do exactly that -- unless our grassroots activists succeed in raising popular visibility and support for our issues: inequality, the environment, labour rights and jobs, human rights, and (urgently under Harper) the future of democracy itself.

Today we have the NDP as official opposition (unthinkable until very recently), yet we confront regressive and anti-democratic forces that are more powerful than in generations. We are fighting for our lives (in many cases quite literally). To succeed, we must be ambitious, audacious, and creative -- and the Occupations have shown us it can be done. The present dangerous moment reminds us, therefore, that successful progressive social change requires both of the left's camps, electoral and extra-parliamentary, to be working at the top of their games. And in Canada, I suggest that means we need to focus first and foremost on stepping up our grassroots organizing efforts, in all areas -- building a strong progressive multidimensional fight back that, among other benefits, would help the new NDP opposition live up to its potential.

Jim Stanford is an economist with CAW and has a column with He was a co-founder of the NPI in 2001.



Loved tihs article, especailly the realtionship of movements to party..  I have been so disappinted with the NDP that I was no longer participating -- but this clearly explains how they are linked and makes me feel much less hypocritical working in elections.  We need to change the conversation so that the NDP can engage in it in an election because people are ready.  Don't mourn.  Oganize.

Please can anyone explain to me how you can possibly fight for ideas with a mainstream media totally hopelessly and Orwellian compromised?

I have launched an action against the CBC National News re its reporting on Libya, with charges that the CBC is responsible for crimes against the Peace for providing the totally erroneous context to support a criminal war with the deaths of over 100,000 Libyan citizens at last count, that they are complict in crimes of genocide  for its denial of the campaign to slaughter the black population of Libya and for violation against the International rights of the Indigenous, in this case the federations of Indigenous Tribal peoples of Libya which demanded that NATO and Canada stay out of Libya.

Not to be outdone we are now witnessing a repeat in this case for Syria, except this time the deaths, if Russia engages to support their ally, in the millions, not to mention the nuclear curtain that will envelope, the planet?

By the way of course the CBC and the rest of the mainstream media failed to mention the heavy use of Uranium 238 tipped missile launches...perhaps the crime of the century, the radiation of the man made river built by the former Libyan Jamahiriya.

And please tell me how can anyone support the NDP?? for thie support of this catastrophe in libya, no doubt to be followed by their support of the world or regional war vs. Syria and Iran.

Finally my denuncia against Rabble for refusing to follow the looming world crisis in the case of Syria, what with the NATO and Canada arming 15,000 mercenaries in Turkey in preparation for the assault, while both Russia and the US has stationed their nuclear war ships off the coast of Syria in preparation...


Monday, Nov. 28, debkafile reported a group of military officers from NATO and Persian Gulf nations had quietly established a mixed operational command at Iskenderun in the Turkish Hatay province on the border of North Syria:

Hailing from the United States, France, Canada, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with Turkish officers providing liaison, they do not represent NATO but are self-designated "monitors." Their mission is to set up "humanitarian corridors" inside Syria to serve the victims of Bashar Assad's crackdown. Commanded by ground, naval, air force and engineering officers, the task force aims to move into most of northern Syria.


Hi Iyraste,

We're not refusing to cover what is happening in Syria and I when I get stories offered about the situaton I will be able to run them. We've already run a few. Staffwise we are a very small operation and doing our best. But by all means, keep up the good work of talking about it here and (hopefully) on babble.

Cathryn Atkinson

News Editor

Jim Stanford's history, above, is a chronicle of the failure of the NDP over the last ten years to give any kind of leadership to the social movements. It has become a "third way" party, devoid of any connection to the day-to-day struggles against globalization, neoliberalism, and the longest war in Canadian history. This could not be more evident than in the NDP's complete lack of interest in, much less enthusiasm for, the Occupy movement.

Stephen Harper came to power by default - the default of the social democratic parliamentary forces to provide any kind of leadership on the left or any kind of vision for an alternative kind of society. Harperism was not a cause, but an effect of the political lethargy and opportunism of the Layton leadership.

Really M. Spector or is that your re-historiation of the events to put down the NDP. In fact, I have MP NDP at the Occupy movement. I completely disagree with your "opinion" because the facts get in the way of your bias opinion.


That said, I have a problem with Jim's statement here: "When the NDP brought down the Paul Martin minority in late 2005, sensing a chance to win seats, Stephen Harper's Conservatives got their foot in the door."

Jim is a wonderful stats person so can easily count and thus knows that when the Cons plus bloc MPs plus 1 independent wanted to bring down the Martin Liberals they did not NEED the NDP votes because they already had the majority of votes (Libs plus NDP did not have majority votes). I am not sure why that "obvious meme" keeps getting a "kick at the can" except it sure is an LIBERAL MEME (they are still crying about that and are also "math challenged). I expect more from Jim as I have great respect for his work but this was shady and reduces his credibility!

Login or register to post comments