The left and the elections
The Hargrove comments are part of a wider debate
taking place on the left.
In a recent Socialist Project “Bullet”,
Greg Albo and Bryan Evans outlined the terrain of the election, and asked,
“What does all this imply for the Left?”
Their first response was right on the money.
“In a wider political sense, it points to the
need to rebuild the resources of hope and struggle necessary to defend the
popular classes and marginalized and to advance an alternative to
capitalism.” But, unfortunately, the rest of the response was off the
mark.
“In more immediate electoral terms, it is to
try to ensure another minority Parliament with more progressive voices than
the last and fewer arch neoliberal ones. This is to vote for the NDP in
English Canada and the BQ in Quebec. In some ridings, however, where the
NDP is a negligible presence there is a case to be made for a vote for the
Liberals to keep out a reactionary conservative.”
What if there is a reactionary Liberal up against a
Red Tory? Do we then vote Tory?
The logic is flawed. We must not give any credence to
the argument that the Liberals are a lesser-evil to the Tories. To do so,
opens the door to Buzz Hargrove embracing Paul Martin – something
that of course Albo and Evans oppose – but which follows from the
same logic as their argument.
Fighting to put class at the centre of left politics
means, in the election, insisting that no support is justified for any
party of business. That means showing that the Liberals and the Tories are
both parties of big business.
And it means in Quebec not buying the
“social-democrat” image of Duceppe, but recognizing that the BQ
originated in a split from the Mulroney Tories.
This is a debate that will continue after the
election. But about one thing there will be no debate – a far more
important date than January 23 is March 18, where we need to pull thousands
onto the streets against war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.