A New Left Populism?

The Lewis campaign has consciously adopted elements of twenty-first-century left electoral politics from around the world. It’s an approach that, with the exception of Québec solidaire, has mostly bypassed Canada.

Lewis has told Jacobin, “We have the ability to build a left-populist majority.” His plan for party renewal, titled “A Political Instrument of the People,” is a nod to the MAS in Bolivia and the wider Latin American left, which uses the same term.

In many ways what Lewis is trying to do has few analogues in the left-populist era. The NDP is a major party in Canada. It has governed seven of the thirteen provinces and territories of Canada at least once. It currently governs two provinces, including Manitoba, where Wab Kinew is the most popular premier in Canada. At the federal level, however, it has always been a third or even fourth party, with the exception of its stint as the official opposition from 2011 to 2015.

While it is seen as Canada’s party of labor and was formed with the support of the Canadian Labour Congress, the NDP has never been as hegemonic among the working class as the Labour Party in Britain or the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Germany were in their heydays. It has never won a majority of the union vote, despite the leadership of most major private sector unions endorsing it. The NDP thus occupies a unique middle ground among social democratic and labor parties worldwide.

Post-2008 left populism has generally taken two forms: the creation of new parties — like France Insoumise and Podemos — or insurgent attempts to transform an established center-left parties, as with Bernie Sanders in the United States or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Syriza, for its part, was a marginal force in Greece until PASOK melted down, but even in its leaner years, the NDP has exercised more influence on the Canadian political scene than Syriza did before the eurozone crisis. The NDP played a major role in the creation of universal health care and the Canada Pension Plan by holding the balance of power during Liberal minority governments in the 1960s. This is a very different institutional history from that of the left-populist parties and leaders of the 2010s.

Other elements of Lewis’s campaign are more familiar. Lewis wants the NDP to be more connected to social movements, echoing strategies pursued by MAS, Podemos, and Syriza. He has amassed a sizable number of endorsements from activists who would not normally publicly endorse the NDP. This attempt to link the NDP to social movements is not new. The NDP’s predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), saw itself as a broad movement that combined farmers, labor, socialists, and progressive Christians. At the 2001 NDP convention, the New Politics Initiative similarly sought to refound the NDP as a more movement-oriented organization, but the proposal failed, losing 37 to 63 percent.

The ambition to unite electoral politics with movements beyond labor is a long-standing aim of the Left, especially since the heyday of Eurocommunism. And it comes with its own challenges. Opening a highly electoralist party to social movements is likely to generate internal dissension. It is equally likely that Lewis will, at some point, have to make political compromises that will anger some social movements. Both the NDP’s own history and a broader pattern among social democratic parties suggest that when such parties are seen to betrays their base, the backlash can be intense — and damaging over the long term.

On Policy

This leadership contest has revealed one major thing. The NDP has moved, probably irreversibly, toward the Palestinian side of the war in Gaza and the broader Israel-Palestine conflict. This has been a point of contention for many party activists, and even some electeds, for years. The party traditionally supported the standard two-state framework on Israel-Palestine. There have always been dissenting voices in the party — such as former MPs Libby Davies and Svend Robinson — both of whom endorsed Lewis — but at times they were sidelined for speaking out on Palestine.

As public sympathy for the Palestinians slowly increased throughout the 2010s, the NDP was slow to adjust — even excluding prospective candidates who had made pro-Palestine statements in the past. In this leadership race, Lewis’s main competition, Heather McPherson, served as the NDP foreign affairs critic during the October 7 attacks and the Gaza genocide. She demanded that the Liberal Party stop supporting Israel and criticized the government’s inadequate response to the war’s devastation. It will be hard for the party to retreat from this position, even if a more party establishment–friendly MP takes over the foreign affairs critic portfolio.

Lewis himself has long been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights. He has visited Gaza during the blockade and was a member of the Jewish Faculty Network, which published a report on genocide denial and anti-Palestinian racism at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. But while Lewis’s views on Palestine has drawn considerable support, his broader platform invites both praise and scrutiny.

Brining the state back into the economy is a major part of the Lewis campaign. He has proposed a public option for groceries, clearly echoing Zohran Mamdani in New York City, along with similar public option proposals for banking, telecoms, housing construction, and pharmaceutical production.

Another major plank is a Canadian Green New Deal, framed as both a way to create jobs for workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries and as a pathway to achieve decarbonization. His proposal to promote worker ownership and democratize the workplace is remarkable, marking a social democratic ambition that has not been seen in a Canadian political leadership campaign in a long time. More controversial is his vow to stop any new fossil fuel infrastructure — this is where many questions about Lewis’s policies begin.

What’s Missing

There are gaps in Lewis’s policy platform that both his supporters and detractors will seize on.

First is the question of nuclear power and the green transition. Nowhere in Lewis’s policies is nuclear mentioned. It was not mentioned in the Leap Manifesto either. With Ontario refurbishing its nuclear plants and contemplating building new ones, it is a live issue in Canadian politics. After years of opposition, the Ontario NDP endorsed nuclear power at its convention this past September, bringing it in line with the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress. Lewis will have to take a position — and rejecting nuclear outright could harm his electoral prospects among unionized blue-collar workers.

While Lewis has been a strident voice for Palestine and quickly condemned Carney’s contradictory statements on the American-Israeli attack on Iran, there are still foreign policy positions that remain undefined. Carney has been aggressive in selling Canada to the world by resetting relations with China and India and signing several trade deals. Lewis, who cut his political teeth in the anti-globalization movement of the 1990s, is going to be skeptical of deals that privilege investors over democracy. Some recent agreements — like the deal with the United Arab Emirates — raise question about rewarding destabilizing behavior abroad.

Canada is attracting increased foreign investment: 2025 saw the highest inward foreign direct investment (FDI) into Canada since 2007. Ongoing instability generated by Donald Trump will likely make Canada an even more attractive destination for investment. Lewis has yet to articulate his vision for how Canada fits into the global economy. There is, however, an opening for him: a growing number of countries are moving to limit or replace the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in trade deals. Lewis would do well to stake out a democratic alternative.

Lewis will also have to tackle the AI question. His current platform calls for restricting its use in public service: no generative AI in government publications and a guarantee of humans serving those looking to access government services. There is also a call for a moratorium on new data centers.

These policies would probably find supporters across the political spectrum and are perfectly reasonable within the context of public services. Canadians themselves are growing increasingly skeptical about AI’s benefits and about the impacts of data centers in their communities.

However, Lewis’s AI policy is too reactive. While some proposed data centers in Alberta are located in water-stressed areas, most of Canada has abundant water resources, and colder temperatures can reduce cooling demands. Canada is too small a country to meaningfully slow the global expansion of AI — particularly given its proximity to its southern neighbor. A forward-looking approach would not leave Canada reliant on major American AI companies who are beholden to the Trump administration.

Lewis will have to respond to the sector’s changes quickly and his current positions may prove insufficient. Given that labor and the Left have historically had difficulty in successfully challenging new technologies that disrupt workplaces and labor markets, a more proactive approach is needed. Canada would be better served pursuing the approach outlined by economists Daron Acemoğlu, David Autor, and Simon Johnson: developing and promoting AI that is labor-enhancing instead of labor-displacing.

Finally, there is the question of funding. Taxing the ultrawealthy is a worthwhile goal — to both reduce inequality and curb concentrated power — but sustaining an extensive welfare state requires taxing the middle class too. Given that taxophobia is alive in well in Canada — Carney cut middle-class and capital gains taxes upon taking office — Lewis has so far missed out on shifting the conversation on taxation beyond targeting the rich.

The Challenges Ahead

Out of the gate, Lewis will no doubt be portrayed by his opponents as antagonistic to blue-collar workers. Some of this will be unfair and some will carry a germ of truth. Lewis has emphasized that no worker should be left behind in the green transition. And with increasing automation in the oil and sector destroying jobs, he has an opening to argue that it is not environmentalists threatening livelihoods but fossil fuels companies themselves.

Lewis does not reject critical mineral development but envisions a greater role for public ownership in the sector and wants to support affected First Nations communities in developing sovereign wealth funds from resource revenues. The key here will be for Lewis to define himself as friendly to all workers before opponents do the opposite.

To do that, Lewis will need to quickly build bridges with private sector unions. While Lewis was not devoid of union endorsements, only a few public sector unions or locals endorsed him — the bulk of the union endorsements went to rival leadership candidate Rob Ashton. Ashton finished fourth in the race, showing that labor’s power in the NDP isn’t what it once was. However, Lewis was quick to reach out to labor leaders in his victory speech, signaling a desire to keep Ashton’s constituency on board.

Then there is the relationship with the provincial NDP sections. This became a point of attack during the campaign, though he has since taken the time to meet with provincial leaders. Again, this is something Lewis will probably have to navigate in his first months as leader.

In British Columbia (BC), Premier David Eby is preparing to make changes to provincial legislation that enshrined the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in to BC law. Previously, the BC NDP government won global plaudits for its approach to reconciliation, but recent court rulings have stoked fears of conflicts with private property rights. Lewis and his supporters will oppose these changes, and as a resident of BC, he cannot avoid the issue.

In Quebec, the entire party came under scrutiny during the leadership race for a French-language debate that featured very little French. Lewis, to his credit, has been steadily improving his French and understands that the party needs to rebuild the foothold it briefly held in Quebec fifteen years ago. At the same time, the ongoing legal battle over the controversial Bill 21 — which seeks to ban civil servants, including teachers, from wearing religious symbols at work — will pose a political test.

Then there is the broader question of strategy. Carney’s Liberal government is at historic levels of popularity, polling at nearly 50 percent, with the prime minister’s approval rating around 68 percent nearly a year after being elected.

While Lewis has criticized Carney’s promise to boost military spending to 5 percent of GDP, the policy is generally popular among Canadians. The government has also been clever in framing many of these investments as “dual-use,” including the long-awaited Mackenzie Valley Highway in the Northwest Territories. How Lewis can craft a popular narrative that rejects military spending despite the threats coming from the White House will be one of his biggest challenges.

Into the Fray

The Liberal’s continued hold on power, despite Trudeau’s dismal polling at the end of his time as prime minister, has everything to do with Trump. When Trump threatens to annex Canada, the public coalesces around the Liberals: the Conservatives are seen as too MAGA-friendly and the NDP are viewed as having no chance to win.

That Lewis must take on both Carney and Trump recalls a previous moment in NDP history. In 1988, the NDP looked like it had a chance to send the Liberals to third place — and the party even topped the polls at one point in 1987. The 1988 federal election is known as the “free-trade election,” with the governing Tories advancing free trade with the United States and the Liberals and NDP opposed. Then-leader Ed Broadbent made a major campaign error: he played down the free-trade issue. The NDP ultimately won a then-record of 43 seats, but it was nevertheless in third place, prompting a backlash from labor and Broadbent’s resignation.

Canadians largely despise Trump, and while Lewis has not spared the American president from criticism, Carney has been his main target. In ordinary parliamentary politics, opposition parties aim their fire on the government. But under these unusual circumstances, it is entirely possible for Lewis to get bogged down opposing Carney and not going hard enough on Trump. The only way for the NDP to make headway is to convince Canadians it will fight Trump more forcefully than the Liberals.

Lewis must learn from the successes and failures of past insurgent left candidates: message discipline in the mold of Bernie Sanders, refuse to back down like France’s left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and, unlike Jeremy Corbyn, be willing to take action against those in the party that would maliciously undermine his leadership.

The dire straits the NDP finds itself in cannot be overstated. At the same time, even commentators in the legacy media — often dismissive of the party — recognize that Carney’s budget cuts, increased military spending, and tighter immigration policy has opened up space to the left of the Liberals. Under Trudeau, that space was often occupied by a left-liberal politics that was sometimes used to outflank the NDP rhetorically while falling far short of a social democratic agenda. That space is clearly up for grabs if Lewis and the NDP can overcome strategic hesitations and claim it.

With groups like NDP Renewal and Reclaim Canada’s NDP actively organizing to revitalize the party and give the membership more power, Lewis’s victory now looks like it was always inevitable. Still, the obstacles to overcome are considerable. Another global crisis could easily send frightened Canadians flocking back to the Liberals. Lewis may struggle to connect with the kind of voters the NDP needs to win.

Even so, there is a strong case for taking on risk. A cautious approach has yet to yield meaningful gains, and, in our volatile geopolitical moment, it is even less likely to do so. There is no good reason not to take a chance and move the NDP to the left. If the party fails, at least it will go out swinging.