Most Canadians think of the country’s record on fighting climate change as a national embarrassment. Part of our outrage over this is no doubt linked to the manner in which the Conservatives have so blatantly shaped their agenda around the interests of Big Oil. There will likely be an election in 2011. And if the coalition of parties and groups representing the Canadian left is to gain ground, it will have to capitalize on this sense of moral outrage.

There is no shortage of ideas for reform. Consider, for example, a slightly more egalitarian version of Stéphane Dion’s “green shift”. What’s lacking, however, are ordinary men and women organizing and arguing in order to influence change. When the election comes, progressive politicians will have to act wisely if a coalition is to succeed. In the meantime, what is needed is an inclusive mobilization of the people to prepare the groundwork.

A recent trend among academics suggests that democracy should be all about “rational deliberation”. The idea is that every person must have a chance to express their opinion---sort of like a citizens’ assembly writ large, with diligent mediators and all. The notion seems noble enough, if a little too intellectual. For who would be the central figures of a deliberative democracy, except for intellectuals themselves?

Furthermore, there is no way that the next social uprising---following the workers, civil rights and feminists movements of the 20th Century---will take off merely on the basis of rational deliberation. Movements arise through a plurality of strategies and tactics, with each participant contributing what they can. A truly exciting democratic community will involve argument and debate, to be sure, but also grassroots organizing, educating, protesting, campaigning and a host of other activities.

Of course, beating the Right will require not only an array of tactics but also vast numbers of groups and organizations---environmental groups, unions, churches, tenants associations---all working together. Unifying ideas and projects will be crucial here. Just as important, however, will be the way in which these groups interact with one another.

The key is to create a cooperative environment that actually reflects the sort of society that we wish to bring about. The left has an advantage here insofar as the actualization of genuine leftist values, like frankness, generosity and solidarity, will tend naturally to generate widespread appeal. If these values permeate our activist circles, newly engaged Canadians are most likely to choose us as their allies and fellow “comrades”.

So, while a formal coalition is something that would take shape in Parliament, there is no reason to think of politics as being limited to this arena. Most of the important work among leftists happens outside of Parliament, in various forms of community organizing. Nor should legislative action be considered the sole form of political action. Protest activities such as dancing in the nude to exhibit painted slogans or rappelling off building to unfold giant banners are also ways of changing public opinion and common practices. The left needs to recognize, however, that as exciting as “moshing the polls” may be, there’s no reason to snub the committed work of political parties and their members.

It’s no doubt true that parties can have undemocratic tendencies. It’s also true that if they are not infused with the passion of ordinary citizens, they are likely to turn themselves into reactionary marketing institutions. But, really, this is all the more reason to flood the base with youthful and committed idealists bent on holding the party brass to account. For it is through parties, ultimately, that great national projects are first glimpsed and then given life to.

If the mistake too many activists make is failing to channel passionate engagement through party politics, a greater mistake is severing the connection between passion and politics altogether. Of course, there is no denying that political passions have led to abominations that must never be reproduced. It may in this regard be worth recalling W.B. Yeats’ apocalyptic image of a “blood dimmed tide” being loosed upon the world.

It’s for this reason that democratic politics must always be contained with the checks and balances of a proper constitutional framework. But beyond this legal foundation, it must also be recognized that democratic politics cannot be sustained if ordinary citizens cannot engage in the passionate hope of creating a better world. Utopian energies are a particularly precious resource for the left, insofar as fighting against the aggrandizement of wealth and power is ultimately driven by the passion for bringing forth a more just and democratic society.

There is, however, a corollary to being passionate citizens: we must cultivate the habit of properly channeling these passions. For leftists, the most relevant instance of this has to do with feelings of resentment toward the rich and powerful. In some cases, the feelings are understandable?as expressed, for example, by the downtrodden and marginalized who have had the cards stacked against them from day one. But it is bad politics to encourage and entrench this kind of impassioned animosity.

A superior approach for leftist militants would be to promote their ideas and vision of the world by appealing to the “better side” of each of their fellow Canadians, regardless of who they are. It remains, however, that those who actively campaign against our vision of, say, environmental and egalitarian reform, must be treated as rivals that the left must defeat. But the question of whether the citizens we come into contact with (and whom we’re trying to convince of the importance of our national program) are somehow affiliated with the wealthy and powerful should ultimately be a matter of secondary concern.

A second instance with regard to which political passions must be checked has to do with regional tensions. This is particularly relevant to the matter of coalition politics in the coming election. If a coalition government were formed, ideally it would not depend on the Bloc Québécois for support. But whatever the configuration of support may be, it’s crucial that the coalition remain thoroughly pan-Canadian in scope and focus. It is especially important, in this regard, that Ontarians and Quebecers don’t get caught up in a dynamic of “sticking it to the West”.

In any case, there’s no reason to think that a Liberal-NDP coalition can’t rise above Stephen Harper’s tendency to pit one region against another. Added effort will no doubt be required in persuading certain regions of the importance of a coalition project. But this is work that should be taken up with enthusiasm and perseverance. No doubt the best place to begin would be in rallying the support of the tens of thousands of Edmonton-Strathcona voters who elected NDPer Linda Duncan, the only MP in Alberta who is not a Tory.

I’ve said that passion, if properly channeled, is a legitimate aspect of the political process. This goes hand in hand with another argument: that a real danger of our times is a democracy devoid of passion altogether. A political system run by party administrators and pollsters puts democracy itself at risk. There was a time when the Liberals and Conservatives seemed purposely bland, taking an impassioned stand on as few issues as possible so as not to offend voters. This kind of “brokerage politics” may have been useful in stitching together the fabric of citizenship at some moment in our history. But the time has long come for Canadians to taste the full fruit of democracy, the essence of which is to inspire and empower citizens.

Popular inspiration is called forth in the pursuit of great national projects such as Medicare, Canadian peacekeeping and, potentially, the green economy. The problem today is that any project inspired by the left would have to be cobbled together from the platforms of various parties at once. There is little chance that a coalition will come together before the election, and maybe that’s for the best. But Canadians should be prepared for a post-election coalition government. After all, holding an election with a highly divided House of Commons after two minority Conservative governments means that a coalition is both a likely and legitimate outcome.

And perhaps it isn’t so far-fetched to imagine a Liberal-NDP coalition coming up with an ambitious national project, born out of their combined realism and stubborn idealism. Consider, for example, a project of “opportunistic egalitarianism” that would link the urgent need to introduce green taxes, as a matter of efficiency, with progressive fiscal reforms that would at once bring about an overall more egalitarian society.

Such a coalition might even be an excellent opportunity for concerned citizens as well as passive members and part-time supporters of these parties to get involved in the shaping of such a project. Here’s to hoping that at least some of these men and women will hear the call. (X)

Andrew Gibson is a postdoctoral student at the UNAM in Mexico City. He has been researching the democratic transition in Mexico within the framework of a study on the role of social critics in international politics. His doctoral dissertation examined the Canadian social criticism of philosopher Charles Taylor. He has recently been involved in setting up an internship for young Canadians focusing on sustainable development in rural Mexico.