The NDP opposition is doing the right thing in taking on the Campbell government on the HST.  It is the job of the official opposition to oppose government initiatives and to give voice to aggrieved citizens.  This initiative is especially odious because Campbell mentioned not a word about it in the election now only three months in the past.

The NDP is thus right to lead the charge.  But some caution is advisable.  For those who believe this will be Campbell’s undoing the way the GST was Mulroney’s, they should remember that the GST added a tax to the vast majority of items that people buy.  One could not go shopping without being reminded of the tax.

In the case of the HST, when the tax comes into affect next July only a small number of consumer items will be taxed extra.  The vast majority of purchases will have the same tax as before.  Consequently, it will not be nearly as easy to keep the anger alive as was the case with the GST.

Some caution is also in order about the NDP’s apparent allies in the business community, particularly in the restaurant, tourism, and home building sectors.  I have before noted that the most important reason the government did this was to provide tax relief to business, in the amount of $2 billion per year and growing.  I am sure it never anticipated the intensity of opposition from those who will have to collect the HST on services previously PST exempt.  This has badly compromised the ability of the government to sell the tax.  But this is coming from a small part of the overall business community.  No stone will be left unturned to remind them that they are also getting a tax break and to find ways to provide them with other forms of relief.  It is very likely that as a consequence most will leave this fight behind before long.

After that it will be the NDP alone carrying the fight.  In the heat of the battle, some suggest using the HST to organize recall and other intiatives to make the government pay for its sins.  Maybe.  But there will be even bigger and more sustainable issues coming, especially when the new budget comes down.  In mapping out next steps, the Opposition might wisely let cooler heads prevail for now rather than rushing into things like recall prematurely.

As reported on CBC’s The Current, going into its national convention the federal NDP is in a mood for change.  Which is good, considering its modest electoral performance over the years.  But the question is, can it change?

One change seems at least possible – a change in name.  It seems the favoured new name is “the Democratic Party”.  It has a nice ring, but it seems to lack a little in originality.  Not that a name change is a bad thing,  but will it help?  I suspect for most voters it will seem a bit desperate and largely trivial.  On the other hand it might not hurt.  But perhaps something like “The Progressive Democratic Party” would seem more substantive.  However, people who know branding can better judge.  Which makes one wonder.  Are convention delegates really experts in branding?  Is this the right place to open up to party democracy.  Why not ask the experts?  Or is the party generally hostile to professional expertise on matters political?  Some say it is, and there is considerable supporting evidence.  So why not start by hiring a good branding company?

But if the NDP really wants change, it might begin by addressing a few matters of substance.  For instance it might:

1.  Look forward rather than back.

The fact is that the Canadian economy has pretty much assumed the form that socialists of one hundred years ago dreamed of.  Socialized medicine, public ownership of utilities, the welfare state, socialized credit through a publicly owned central bank, supply management of farm products, union rights and a host of other policies are now a reality.  Not surprisingly, there is some erosion in each of these as people see certain shortcomings and problems in them and as powerful interests work to undermine them.  This has created a trap for the NDP.  It has become identified with the defense of these programs as they were, thus projecting a conservative, anti-change image.  One of the striking things about NDP conventions is how much nostalgia for the past infuses much of what is said.  This is a dead end.  No matter how much attachment there is to past achievements the NDP must project a vision of the future that is modern and embraces change.

2.  Drop its nationalistic ideology and its nativistic anti-Americanism.

In the 1960’s and the 1970’s, left politics in Canada became rooted in Canadian nationalism.  Which largely meant anti-Americanism.  Virtually all policy was informed if not driven by this form of nationalism.  There is nothing politically bad about being patriotic.  But in the case of the NDP, nationalism has led to the embracing of all kinds of conservative principles, like protectionism, state capitalism for its own sake, Canadian ownership, blind anti-Americanism, preferences for  Canadian business, dis-like of international unions, hostility to NATO and the like.  Indeed at an NDP convention, the dialogue has been infused with nationalist ideas, and continues to this day.  Whatever may have been the politically merits of this 20 years ago, Canada has moved on.  Voters are no longer ideologically nationalistic.  Not so the NDP.  The same kind of tired and outdated nationalistic rhetoric still prevails.

3.  Organizationally untangle from labour.

Much has already been said about this.  The old party-union amalgam is an anachronism.  The NDP can still be pro-worker and pro-union in its policy.  But it needs to become a separate party independent of unions organizationally.  Unions per se should not have delegates, should not have constitutional privileges, and should not have privileged access to official positions.  The NDP needs to make the break officially, amend the constitution and re-structure  its organization accordingly.

4. Cure itself of its anti-business instinct.

No party that seriously aspires to power can be anti-business in its attitudes and perceptions.  The federal NDP is.  The hostility to profit is palpable.  No serious business interests associate with the NDP.  It is us and them.  Of course the NDP tries to use business friendly language from time to time.  But it is foreign to the deepest held beliefs of most party activists.  Change does not mean surrendering to business interests.  Capitalism can be hurtful and destructive.  But policy should be based on good analysis, and focus on making things better.  It should be pragmatic rather than ideological.  The NDP must stop being held hostage by those who have a visceral hatred of capitalism and distrust of profits.  It must seek and achieve meaningful business support and validation as a worthy future government.  Hard as that maybe, that must be a goal.  British Labour for instance has serious and substantial business leaders in it caucuses and party organs. This gives it the balance and diversity that is essential to a modern political party.

5.  Get serious about meaningful and and relevant economic issues.

Economic issues are fundamental.  Voters need to hear serious propositions from serious political parties.  The Bank of Canada and monetary policy, free trade, budget management, government spending, globalization, competition policy, resources policy, transportation policy and a host of other matters are begging for attention.  But the NDP is seen by most voters as a slogan machine cranking out endless  negatives in the guise of policy.  No to monetarism, no to free trade, no to restraint in spending, no to big corporations, no to private resource development, no to spending on freight infrastructure are all good examples.  Unfair?  Perhaps a bit but the NDP does see the world in black and whites in far too many cases.  The number of matters requiring sophisticated attention about which the NDP has a simple black and white view is lengthy.  No electorate will take such a party seriously as a possible government.  The world is moving forward.  The modern economy is a reality.  Parties must work within it and go forward.  Or wither.  The NDP has chosen the latter.  Old believes don’t die easily.

6.  Embrace welfare reform.

Welfare was one of the great accomplishments of the welfare state.  But it was never meant or understood to be the solution to poverty.  It was always a stop gap and a protection for those who had nowhere else to turn.  The idea that its design should make  transitions to work difficult and costly would have been anathema to its originators, many of them supporters of the CCF.  However, as it became apparent that a generous system of welfare is not sustainable if this generosity creates a trap to stay on welfare, the NDP became locked into opposition to change and improvement.  It has not been able to bring itself to accept constructive change consistent with continued generous support for those in need.  In simply fighting the ubiquitous and iniquitous work fare of the neo-conservatives, it surrendered the ground of reform to them.  In the course of doing so, its image became inextricably linked to an non-defensible drain on taxpayers and a blindness to needed change.  This image prevails to this day.  That part of the NDP leadership that recognizes this problem lacks the courage to speak out or take any leadership.   This is deeply symbolic of the problem the NDP faces.

7.  Let go of the romance with Quebec.

As regular as clock-work, the federal NDP decides to seek electoral support in Quebec, fails to do so in the next election, turns its attention to other things and then decides once again to make another push for a break through in Quebec.  And it always fails.  Each time it develops an new obsession with Quebec, all of its other positioning and policy is screened through a Quebec lens.  The result is that too often positions with more general appeal get watered down, modified or deep-sixed, just to mollify Quebec.  Unless the NDP recognizes that the social democratic territory in Quebec is already occupied by the PQ and the BQ, it will always undermine its ability to take a clear message to its supporters in the rest of Canada.  It needs to make a decision to implicitly recognize the BQ as its partner in Quebec and as the legitimate representative of Quebec’s social democratic impulses.  This does not mean embracing separatism.  It is perfectly consistent with accepting Quebec’s right to self determination – NDP policy.  The means of working together with the BQ does not need to be addressed here, but the coalition strategy is a good example.  The good will generated by that should be continued to extend the basis for collaboration.

8.  Shut down hatred of Israel.

There is much that is wrong with the policies of Israel.  No-one can or should embrace some of the more egregious offenses against human rights and Israeli complicity in breaches of international law that have and will occur.  But the fundamental evils of anti-Semitism, the holocaust and Jewish dispossession must haunt every political organization and party today.  Forgetting must be impossible and solidarity never ending.  The problem is that some elements in the NDP are possessed by a visceral hatred of Israel.  And it shows.  It infects the perception of the NDP to such an extent that no NDP pronouncement on Israel is credible.  This is a political dead end.  No modern and successful Canadian political party can be successful suffering from such an infection.  It must be cured.

If the NDP wants to change, the above lists is a good starting point.

This is not to guarantee success.  The NDP is the third party in Canada.  It is extremely difficult for a third party to break the hold that the two leading parties have on electoral success.  The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this note.  This simply means that change is a necessary but not sufficient basis for success.  But without it there is not chance.

Many will ask how a party is to make the kinds of changes I suggest.  Clearly it is not easy.  Many of the active members of the party subscribe to the problematic views I set out.  Thus change will not come through grass roots convention resolutions.  Since the party leaders generally have been active members, some of the leadership shares these view.  So that is a problem.  If change is to come it will have to come from select leaders who see the problems and set aside differences, agree to work together around an agreed program of change, and work long and hard to get it.  Not ideal perhaps, but the way change usually happens.

But it involves risks, requires strategies and takes guts.  Therein lie the problems.

Most believe that Hamad Karzai is assured re-election as President of Afghanistan in the election on August 20th.  He has the apparent support of the United States and the western nations, (although doubts about him are widely held, including by Obama) and most observers report he will have no problem winning.  No stone is being left unturned to  ensure that he is once again elected.  Distasteful deals, a feature of his governing style, are made with tribal leaders, warlords and other powerful groups.  Money flows freely to cement relationships founded on networks of corruption and patronage.  The fact that Karzai has largely failed to establish an effective, working government is largely ignored as power brokers bet their money on Karzai in a desperate effort to avoid a collapse of the Afghan state.

However, this could very well  be just one more time that the west gets it wrong.  Karzai’s electoral success is proving to be less than a sure thing.  He is facing a real challenge from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, a telegenic and experienced candidate with a long history in the internecine  battles to control the country.

Many westerners will remember Dr. Abdullah Abdullah as the public face of the country in the period following the fall of the Taliban, when he was the international spokesperson and Foreign Minister.  Before that he was Foreign Minister in the pre-Taliban government dominated by Ahmad Shah Massoud, now best known as leader of the Northern Alliance, which claimed to be the  legitimate government of Afghanistan during the Taliban period.  Massoud was killed by Taliban agents in his northern hide-out on September 13, 2001.  Massoud was Defense Minister for a time before the Taliban took over.  His army fought the destructive battle for Kabul with the competing war lord, then Prime Minister and known Taliban sympathizer and collaborator Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.  This senseless fight was responsible for reducing Kabul to the ruble it is today.   In the end neither won – the Taliban moved in and were welcomed by a completely demoralized city.

Abdullah was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs of the post-Taliban Interim Administration in December 2001, and after the Loya jirga in 2002, became Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Transition Administration that governed until the elections of 2004, when Karzai was elected.  He continued for a time as Foreign Minister, but not being a warlord with control over an army and a tribal region, he was seen by Karzai as being of little value.  Most of the remainder of the Northern Alliance leaders, including the warlards, became members of parliament, forming the “official opposition” to Karzai and further isolating Abdullah.

This time Abdullah is the nominee of the United National Front, which is essentially the the old Northern Alliance.   But with one big difference.  The powerful war lords – Dostum and  Fahim  in particular – have gone over to Karzai.

Abdullah left the government in 2006.  He now is a strong critic of the Karzai’s leadership. Turning down a chance to become Mr. Karzai’s running mate this year, he attacks him for polarizing the country, making deals with warlords and engaging in massive corruption.

He is positioning himself as leader of a younger generation of Afghans fed up with warlords, mujahedeen leaders clinging to the past and corruption.  He represents the first serious challenge to a power system that has existed since the fall of the Soviets, aside from the Taliban during their disastrous backward looking  adventure in government.

His main challenge is to prevent Karzai from getting over 50% of the votes and thus to force a run-off.  This is not the first time that Abdullah has looked to be a promising option for Afghanistan.  He speaks the language of educated westerners, and was touted by the western media back in the early part of the decade as a coming force.  However he had no real power base, the position of warlord and leader of the Northern Alliance having been shared out among Abdul Rashid Dostum, Yunus Qanuni, and Qasim Fahim. He is also a Tajik.  Many believe that Afghanistan’s president has to come from the Pashtun ethnic group.

But the President is chosen by direct election.  His message is appealing to those who see little good coming from the Karzai government.  The Northern Alliance leaders are supporting him.  It is not impossible that many voters want change.  If so, he has a chance.