NDP still struggling in shift to opposition

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/01/2017 (2905 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Opposition parties play crucial practical and symbolic roles in a healthy democracy. A strong government requires a strong opposition.

In April 2016, Manitobans elected a strong Progressive Conservative government that holds 40 of the 57 seats in the legislature. To date, the government led by Premier Brian Pallister has avoided serious political trouble by postponing tough choices and benefiting from the weaknesses of its political opponents.

This year, the government will have to act on the findings of the multiple expenditure reviews it has launched and make concrete decisions that will bring revenues and expenditures into balance.

For its part as the official Opposition, a currently dysfunctional NDP must get its act together and become an effective critic of the actions and inactions of the government.

Our cabinet-parliamentary system concentrates authority and initiative in the hands of the premier and cabinet, but it then seeks to hold this small group of political insiders accountable by requiring them to regularly boast and confess in public, particularly in question period, which allows opposition members to criticize and oppose.

That the opposition is valuable is reflected in the procedural rights and protections for the opposition parties in the legislature, the provision of a ministerial-level salary to the leader of the official Opposition and the other funds provided for the research needed to challenge government positions.

Our system remains democratic in part because the opposition parties are free and have the capacity to express their disagreement with the general direction of government policy, including individual bills and expenditure decisions. This happens on a daily basis when the legislature is in session.

It is through the adversarial clash of government versus opposition that the public obtains the benefit of exposure to alternative perspectives. Often when the opposition speaks against government proposals, they are expressing the concerns of organizations outside of the legislature. Such representations contribute to acceptance of policy decisions because people feel their voices have been heard.

In addition to its practical value, the dynamics of government versus opposition, including the peaceful transition of power, send the important symbolic message that civilized political debate is the best way to achieve consensus (as much as possible in a pluralistic society) on how to make progress.

In terms of short-term political tactics, it often seems smarter for the opposition to simply criticize the mistakes, misdeeds and inactions of the governing party. This tactical approach reflects the old political adage that governments usually defeat themselves. It also avoids the risk that the governing party will steal opposition ideas and, in the process, cause the opposition to lose its identity.

On the other hand, if an opposition party wants to be seen as an alternative government-in-waiting, it must put forward some policy ideas. In the current era of permanent campaigning, too much emphasis is on winning headlines every day and too little on preparing to govern.

Having recently gone into opposition after nearly 17 years in government, the NDP is having trouble shifting into an opposition mode. They remain in a defensive mode, defending the policies they followed when in office. After such a long tenure, a party runs out of policy ideas and loses touch with public opinion in part because their leadership group is preoccupied with the tasks of governing.

There is the additional problem that the NDP’s fight over leadership left enduring divisions. The magnitude of the party’s defeat means there are few experienced MLAs available to challenge the Pallister government. Even among the survivors, there is less enthusiasm for the thankless tasks of opposition compared with the exhilaration of governing.

Last year, Flor Marcelino reluctantly assumed the role of interim party leader, a job other MLAs in the caucus declined. Typically, it is the party leader who leads the challenges to the government in question period. Marcelino acknowledges that she lacks the aggressive leadership style and easy command of English (her second language) that would better enable her to confront Pallister.

A lack of strategy, focus and discipline within the caucus has meant a poor performance in terms of challenging the government. The suspension of MLA Mohinder Saran amid sexual-harassment allegations and, most recently, the resignation of Rob Altemeyer as caucus chairman, are other signs of disarray and dysfunction.

Selection of a permanent leader for the NDP will not take place until September. This means that, for many months, party elites and activists will be preoccupied with the leadership contest. Once chosen, the new NDP leader will have to heal any resulting divisions in order to build a cohesive team.

Currently, many in the NDP blame the defeat on poor leadership and poor communication, not on the policies they followed or failed to pursue. This is a mistake. The party’s policy cupboard may not be bare, but it definitely needs restocking for the party to regain credibility and to restore its brand in the public mind.

In the legislature, some PC ministers have been excessively zealous in celebrating the defeat and ongoing problems of the NDP. A united, effective and credible opposition would help to curb potential complacency and arrogance that eventually brings governments down.

 

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.