John Horgan, leader of the New Democratic Party of B.C., was musing recently about a name change for the NDP. After all, a party that has been around since 1961 is scarcely new.
It’s not something Horgan is pushing — he was merely reacting to a suggestion from an NDP MP who lost his Nova Scotia seat in the federal election.
Peter Stoffer says the NDP should drop the “new” from its name.
“If you just call yourselves the Democrats,” he said, “people can digest that very easily.”
Be careful what you wish for. Changing a familiar brand should not be done whimsically.
Taking the “new” out of New Democratic Party is not a new idea. It was kicked around at the party’s 2009 national convention, but was not debated. A Harris Decima poll conducted just before that convention found that among those who had an opinion, people favouring the change (36 per cent) only slightly outnumbered those who thought it was a bad idea (31 per cent).
“Making changes to a brand name that has broad public recognition poses risks,” said Harris Decima senior vice-president Jeff Walker.
However, over the long term, Walker said, there appeared to be “a potential upside” to changing the name.
But Democratic Party? Really? That name is already taken. Even though there would no official connection with the party south of the border, the Canadian Democrats would constantly battle the perception that they were aligned with American Democrats. In a country where “Americanization” is a nasty word, that would not be a wise move.
In the recent federal election campaign, widespread criticism arose about strategies that appeared to have been borrowed from the U.S. The Harper government was often bashed for being more like an American government than a Canadian government.
We enjoy a good relationship with our next-door neighbour, for the most part, but we Canadians are a bit touchy about being perceived as ersatz Americans. A Canadian party with the same name as an American party would indicate a party out of touch with Canadians. That perception might not be accurate, but perceptions are paramount in politics.
Perhaps the NDP could look to its roots. The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress merged in 1961 to become the NDP, the “new” social democratic party, but that word “social” also carries certain overtones — it would evoke associations with Social Credit from the other side of the political spectrum.
It’s understandable that the NDP would be seeking renewal, given the results of the federal election, but people did not decide to vote for other parties because of names. They looked at platforms, policies, and the character and conduct of candidates and leaders.
A name change by itself would fall flat. One needs only to look at the B.C. New Democrat Official Opposition website for guidance on that matter. As the B.C. Liberals were pondering a name change leading up to their 2011 convention, the NDP house leader — one John Horgan — scoffed at the idea, saying it was a desperate play from a party going down in flames.
“The B.C. Liberals think they can trick British Columbians into believing they are shiny and new,” Horgan said.
Words worth remembering.
The New Democrats have had their ups and downs, but theirs is a brand that is largely respected. They have held the feet of government to many fires; they are feisty in opposition. They are often a legislature’s social conscience.
Unless a brilliant new name can be found to replace the old one, it would be wise to leave the party’s name as it is and focus on more substantial issues.
