Not A Team Player

 

I have never been much of a joiner. I never really participated in team sports, committees (unless I had no choice), or group endeavours. There is something about the passionate intensity of such pursuits that has always left me cold. And, of course, history teaches us a great deal about happens when we lose ourselves in collective mania.

I therefore feel a measure of sympathy for Hamilton Centre MPP Sara Jama, the erstwhile NDP member ousted from caucus over her refusal to recognize and submit to the party hierarchy. It is not always easy to play nice with others. But my sympathy is limited.

There are many posts on social media decrying NDP leader Marit Stiles' decision to remove Jama. Some profess admiration for Jama's unwavering defence of Palestinians and vow never again to vote for the party. Indeed, someone went so far as to vandalize the window of Stiles' constituency office.

All, of course, are entitled to their opinion, but what they fail to understand in their idealistic fervour is that politics is a team sport. It is something one presumably knows before running for office. And it is a truth that Ms. Jama chose to ignore repeatedly.

Marit Stiles had this to say about her removal from caucus:

NDP Leader Marit Stiles announced Monday that Sarah Jama was removed from caucus because she has “broken the trust of her colleagues,” less than an hour before government MPPs passed a motion that will prevent Ms. Jama from speaking in the legislature.

 Ms. Jama, who was elected last March to the riding of Hamilton Centre, has been the source of controversy for the NDP after she posted a statement two weeks ago about the conflict in the Middle East. The post focused on the plight of Palestinians and human-rights violations in Gaza but did not speak about Israeli lives lost or condemn Hamas for its atrocities against Jewish people.

Ms. Stiles initially demanded that Ms. Jama remove the post, but the rookie MPP did not do so. Instead, Ms. Jama issued an apology to Jewish and Israeli people, condemned Hamas, and called for a release of all hostages and an end to the siege in Gaza. Ms. Jama’s original post, which she has since moved to the top of her social media, remains online. 

It would seem that Stiles worked earnestly to avoid removing her from caucus.

“Ms. Jama and I had reached an agreement to keep her in the NDP caucus, which included working together in good faith with no surprises. Our caucus and staff have made significant efforts to support her during an undoubtedly difficult time,” Ms. Stiles said in a statement.

“Since then, she has undertaken a number of unilateral actions that have undermined our collective work and broken the trust of her colleagues.”

Drilling right done to the essential truth, it is clear that Jama, in her own purist approach to politics, was undermining Stiles' very leadership of the Ontario NDP, as well as offering the gift to the Ford government of diversion from the Greenbelt scandal. These are two facts that the idealists among us fail to acknowledge.

Politics has been called "the art of the possible," a pragmatic perspective that, in my view, speaks another essential truth. By ignoring that truth, Jama has consigned herself to political oblivion and betrayed her obligations to her entire constituency.

 

The Tyranny Of Conformity

Yesterday, KirbyCairo wrote another of his thought-provoking posts, this one on the current plight of the federal NDP and its search for renewal. That prospect is dim, Kirby says, unless the party can break free from what he calls the top-down party structure and its inability to address issues that matter to Canadians. It is a plaint that was also echoed, but with a different emphasis, in a piece by Thomas Walkon in yesterday's Star. And now, the former NDP candidate for Toronto Centre, Linda McQuaig, writes about the tyranny of conformity imposed upon political candidates.

First, some background. You may remember this moment of frankness from the last federal campaign, (start at the five-minute mark on the video) and the fireworks that ensued:



In her column today, McQuaig discusses why she entered the political arena:

I ran (unsuccessfully) as the federal NDP candidate in Toronto Centre in the 2013 byelection and again in 2015, with the dream of putting into action progressive ideas I’d championed as a journalist. In jumping into politics, I realized I was giving up some of the freedom I’d enjoyed as a columnist and author to become part of a team with a collective message.

What conclusions did she draw from those experiences?

... it strikes me that the iron hand of party discipline — by which all three of our major political parties keep tight control on their messaging — can also have the effect of limiting debate and discouraging independent thinking, to the detriment of our democratic system.

It was a fact brought home to her by her experience depicted in the above video showing how her honesty was used against her:

Out of the blue, ... [Michelle] Rempel was trying to goad me into saying something negative about the oilsands.

I knew I was supposed to “pivot” — that is, deftly switch to something in line with party messaging.

Host Rosemary Barton sided with Rempel and pushed me for an answer.

So — to pivot or not to pivot? If I didn’t pivot, I knew I’d be stepping into a trap laid by Conservative strategists to portray the NDP as anti-development. But if I did pivot, I felt somehow I’d be betraying the planet.

After a split second in which I saw my political life pass in front of me, I decided to side with the planet, saying “a lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we’re going to meet our climate change targets.”

The ensuing ado included being predictably pounced upon by Harper, as well as other Conservatives and Liberals, including future prime minister Justin Trudeau, who denounced my “extreme” position.

Others recognized it as a mere statement of fact, but, of course, facts seem to have little relevance or value in political campaigns.

Citing Susan Delacourt, McQuaig says the experience

seemed to reinforce the case for tight political messaging based on the rule, as reported by Susan Delacourt in her book Shopping for Votes: “Do not talk of sacrifice, collective good, facts, problems or debate.”

In other words, avoid complexity and controversy — or anything else that assumes the voter is capable of accepting the responsibility of citizenship.

Much to her credit, the journalist questions whether this is the right way to go.

The pressure to conform and adopt a 'group-think' mentality is one of the chief reasons I have avoided being involved in groups for most of my life. I am glad that Linda McQuaig recognizes that such constraints are not for her. Her voice is much stronger, more appreciated and more effective as a journalist seeking to be a constructive contributor to some much-needed national debate than as a mouthpiece for a political party. We are all the better for it.

Pondering Pandering Political Parties

I am long past the age where I expect very much from politicians of any stripe. While it is easy to target (and I frequently do!) the Harper-led Conservative Party as the party of the corporate agenda, it is also sadly true that both the Liberal Party and the NDP have as their greatest priority the acquisition of power, frequently at the expense of principle. For example, putative messiah of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, is shockingly shallow when it comes to policy pronouncements, the better, I assume, to form them closer to the next election according to perceived public preferences, the reflection of which could lead to victory at the polls. The NDP, with their frequent references to 'the middle class' and their middle-of-the-road policy orientations under Thomas Mulcair are no better.

There is an excellent piece by Glenn Wheeler in this morning's Star that reminds us of these political realities. Entitled Liberal party and the labour movement need each other; the author, a lawyer for the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union and a member of the Liberal Party’s National Policy and Election Platform Committee, reflects on the fact that while the union he works for is trying to discourage the public from flying Porter Air due to the fuel-handlers' strike, the Liberal Party is pushing discount rates it has negotiated with the carrier for the upcoming Liberal Leadership gathering in Toronto.

This situation, he suggests, is emblematic of the abandonment/downgrading of union concerns by the aforementioned parties at a time when labour is under unprecedented attack both by the Harper regime federally, and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives who are championing 'right-to-work' legislation that would essentially be the death knell of the union movement.

Because I am experiencing some Internet problems right now, I will end with a strong recommendation that you read the full article to see why Wheeler believes that strong unionism and a healthy political climate are complementary, not contradictory objectives. One can only hope that in their race/lust for power, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair bear that fact in mind.