What is the New Politics Initiative? With no clear definition or consensus, even from within the ranks of the NPI itself, activists met in Toronto on January 19 to consider this very question.

According to its own web site, the NPI "was launched with the goal of creating a new Canadian political party." On the other hand, the text continues, "there is no suggestion that the NPI would split off from the New Democratic Party (NDP) to form a separate, competing party; the NPI's goal is to unify the left, not divide it."

The web site's Frequently Asked Questions section attempts to clarify the organization's identity: "The NPI argues that a new progressive political party should be formed at the federal level, through a process of cooperation and consultation between the existing NDP, and other progressive political forces in Canada (including other left political formations, like the Green Party)."

Yet, less than 40 percent of delegates to the NDP convention in November 2001 endorsed the call. Furthermore, the Green Party of Canada has stated that it does not consider itself part of the NPI, nor does it view the NPI as a legitimate effort to unite the Left. The Green Party sees itself as neither Left nor Right but, instead, as representative of growing public ecological awareness.

So, at the Toronto conference, entitled Imagine New Politics, participants addressed fundamental questions. No Logo author Naomi Klein, NDP Member of Parliament Svend Robinson and anarchist organizer Jaggi Singh spoke on a panel, asking if the NPI should in fact aim at creating a new political party.

Moderator Judy Rebick, who publishes the online news-magazine rabble.ca, opened the discussion by asking what is meant by 'new politics'.

Robinson defined 'new politics' as bridging the gap between grassroots activists - 'the movement' - and electoral parties.

Singh replied that the buzzword 'new politics' is a public relations tactic to co-opt competing activist tendencies under a diplomatic umbrella. He said this is true whether 'new politics' means a new political party or, on the contrary, a clear rejection of electoral politics for strategic reasons. If it means the latter, there is certainly nothing new about the idea; anarchists have been thinking about 'new politics' for well over a century and have identified important tactical differences within the movement that should not be glossed over with sensationalistic "weasel words."

Klein agreed that political differences between activists should not be swept under the rug. For her, new politics reflects an impatience with just saying no, and a desire to better articulate what we stand for. These are not new ideas, she said. The spirit of reclaiming the commons goes back hundreds of years.

Robinson disagreed with Singh's rejection of electoral politics, saying he was playing into the hands of the Right. Denying any illusions, Robinson insisted that parliamentarians can make an important difference in people's day-to-day lives. As an example, he pointed to British Columbia, which under the NDP had a tuition freeze for six years and the highest minimum wage in Canada-clawed back when the Liberals assumed power last year. He disagreed with Klein's observation that people are angry at the State itself; while the public does reject specific Leftist governments, Canadians feel strongly about national health care and education.

Klein defended her stance that public anger is indeed directed at centralized power in Ottawa. She pointed out that national standards are not incompatible with decentralized power, and that this is precisely the appeal of right-wing populism, which the Left needs to better understand.

Responding to Klein's assertion that activists need to "go beyond" just saying no, Singh said that what we say no to provides the framework for discussing alternatives. Otherwise, he explained, our reforms end up reproducing the existing system - for example, buying organic food rather than dismantling capitalism. Rejecting Robinson's suggestion that anti-electoralists are stooges of the Right, Singh said that ignoring parliamentary politics does not mean giving up on politics altogether.

Rebick then asked what it means to democratize the State.

Advocating power dispersal rather than a power grab, Klein explained that the alternative to privatization is not the State, but 'the common'. She suggested that the NPI be an activist network rather than a political party.

Singh acknowledged that anti-statist rhetoric can sometimes make anarchists sound like spokespeople for the Michigan Militia, and conceded Robinson's point that modest improvements such as tuition freezes and minimum wage laws make a real difference in people's lives. Defining reformism as "survival pending revolution," Singh said that it's not just anarchists who don't want to work with political parties - most people engaged in day-to-day activism experience the same doubts. What's needed, he explained, is networking the front lines of struggle in terms of direct face-to-face solidarity.

However, Robinson criticized this as a false dichotomy. Bus riders' unions are great, he said, but public transportation also requires government funding.

Dialogue became testy around the question of learning about governance from First Nations people. Singh, who was living in British Columbia when the NDP government cut a treaty with the Nisga'a people, said he found the negotiation process to be a cynical exercise in undermining Native sovereignty. Robinson then attacked Singh as being patronizing and arrogant toward the Nisga'a, who voted overwhelmingly for the treaty, and debate ensued, peppering the discussion long after the subject was broached. Though Singh scored bonus points with the phrase "avant-garde colonialism," the two finally agreed to disagree.

Rebick then raised the issue of representation versus direct democracy. Klein noted that any gains the NDP made during their time in power (in Ontario and British Columbia) have been drastically set back by the reaction to them. Klein said she doesn't believe activists can jump from the street to having a voice in federal or provincial government. Rather, she explained, people should start small, by democratizing a local school or hospital. The common thread between what's happening on a global level and what's happening in our neighbourhoods is the increasing centralization of power.

Robinson replied that the NDP should be involved not only at the local level, but also at the provincial, federal and even international levels. Why, he asked, should the public leave the Liberals and the Tories to fight out the next election?

Singh drew attention to the language of activists 'abandoning' electoral politics. How do you abandon something you've never been involved or interested in? He said it is "too cute" to suggest that both grassroots activism and electoral politics are needed, though he did concede that, if there were 48 hours in a day, he might give one of those hours to the NDP.

Klein concluded the discussion by remarking that, as far as most people are concerned, it's not an either/or issue, because they don't identify with the NDP or the street protestors. She said activists simply aren't ready for a political party and need to build bottom-up. "We could be thinking bigger than we are now. But it's a slower process."

Tim Doucette is a member of The ACTivist collective.