Power and ethics in NDP leadership fight

The increasingly nasty fight over the leadership of the NDP illustrates dramatically the tension between power and ethics in political life.

As the leadership contest develops there will, no doubt, be more examples of actions and accusations that democratic principles and values are being sacrificed in pursuit of the winning the job of party leader.

Politics involves competition for power, both among and within political parties. In the present climate of widespread cynicism, a majority of citizens believe that all politicians are solely motivated by the desire to capture and to retain power.To this end, it is assumed that they will say and do almost anything.

All their talk about fundamental principles and values of democracy is seen to be empty rhetoric that disguises their self-interested motivations and manipulative behaviour. In public rankings of the trustworthiness of various professions, politicians typically come last or second last.

This prevailing negative stereotype of politicians is simplistic and false, or at least highly exaggerated. At its best, politics involves a creative process of identifying, expressing and balancing a range of diverse interests and values within society. There are often no right answers to what is in the public interest, and politics is the process through which consensus is sought.

Most politicians accept that there are democratic principles and values that should guide the political process, especially if the outcomes are to be seen as legitimate. They also recognize that they will be held accountable for their actions. Often political actions are based on mixed motivations both to win power and to do the right thing.

These observations apply to the current power struggle within the NDP. The party has always regarded itself as being based on noble ideals. Section one of the party constitution requires members to embrace such principles as cooperation, fairness, honesty and solidarity. The party claims, with some justification, that it has practised greater internal democracy than other parties.

Along with other parties, the NDP has agreed to promote and enforce a little known Shared Code of Ethical Conduct developed by Elections Manitoba in consultation with the parties. The code commits parties to act to maintain and enhance public confidence in the integrity of the political process. Honesty, transparency, freedom from intimidation and disclosure of information are principles meant to guide the political process.

Parties promise to avoid conduct which would be regarded as unfair or unacceptable by reasonable, fair-minded and informed persons. They also agree to establish procedures for reporting conduct which violates the letter and the spirit of the code.

Ethical principles are easier to respect when power is not at stake. In a crisis, politics and ethics can become messy and ugly to observe. How would an ethical, reasonable and fair minded person answer the following questions related to the ongoing, intensifying drama within the NDP?

• Were the resignations from cabinet and caucus justified because the premier broke his promise and acted unilaterally on the PST increase? Were they justified because cabinet and caucus opinion was increasingly counting for less in the governing process, even as the party slipped badly in the polls?
• Did the five dissident cabinet ministers exhibit cabinet solidarity and promote party unity when they resigned and openly attacked the leadership of Greg Selinger?
• What democratic principle justified their attempt to displace a party leader who won two-thirds of the votes at a party convention back in 2009 and led the party to a record majority of seats in the 2011 election?
• Were the dissidents motivated solely by fears of the party losing at the next election and losing their own seats in the process? If they had deep policy disagreements with the premier, why didnt they resign earlier and voice their concerns?
• Do one or more of the dissidents harbour strong leadership ambitions? Are there ministers still serving in cabinet who plan to run for the leadership, but calculated it was better to avoid any backlash from within the party?
• By insisting that he could stay on as premier while facing an open revolt and a leadership review that has now become a leadership contest, can Greg Selinger be fairly accused of clinging to power? How does the public judge when he is performing as premier versus campaigning for his job as party leader?
• Is Selinger refusing to acknowledge honestly that both in practice and appearance, running a leadership campaign out of the premiers office gives him an unfair advantage?
• Is there a ceiling on total spending by leadership candidates? Does it reach a high enough standard of disclosure and fairness to adopt, as the party did last Saturday, a rule that candidates must ensure that no money or services attached to public offices will be used in campaigns?
• Will there be intimidation involved if cabinet ministers, MLAs and political staff serving the premier, other ministers and MLAs are not given permission to support the leadership candidate of their choice without fear of retaliation?
• What method of delegate selection for the leadership convention will be used winner take all, or some model of proportional representation in which candidates will be awarded delegates based on their share of the votes in each constituency association?

The actions of the rebels have been described as political treachery and Greg Selinger has been described as arrogant and dictatorial. Unless the contestants for leadership strive for more respectful exchanges, there will be continuing damage to the image of the NDP as a party committed to ethical values and principles of internal democracy.

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

More from Paul Thomas:

• Resolving the NDP leadership crisis: Not just a matter for the party

• Disarray in the NDP: what should happen next?