Following the election of Avi Lewis as leader of the New Democratic Party, longtime anti-war activist and author Yves Engler is offering a response that combines cautious optimism with a clear call to action.
Engler, who was ejected from the NDP leadership race earlier this year in a controversial decision, is not responding with disengagement. Instead, he is urging party members and supporters to recognize the opening created by Lewis’s leadership — and to actively push the party further.
“Lewis is saying many of the right things,” Engler noted, pointing to the new leader’s condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza and his opposition to war with Iran. “But the real test is whether the NDP will challenge the core structures of Canadian foreign policy — especially NATO and Canada’s alignment with U.S. militarism.”
From exclusion to influence
Engler’s intervention carries particular weight given his recent exclusion from the race — a move that raised questions about internal democracy and the limits of dissent within the party. At the time, Lewis offered only a measured critique of that decision.
Yet despite that exclusion, many of the themes long associated with Engler’s work — opposition to militarism, criticism of Western foreign policy alignment, and a focus on structural inequality — are now visible in Lewis’s messaging.
In his first press conference, Lewis stated that Canada should have “absolutely no role” in a U.S.-Israel war on Iran. He described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “genocide” and framed his politics as “anti-war, pro-international law, and fundamental human rights.”
He also embraced a class-based framework, stating that “left-wing populists believe that capitalism concentrates wealth and power in the fewest hands” and that politics must respond to “the needs of the 99% of us.”
The overlap with Engler’s long-standing critiques is difficult to ignore.
Anti-war rhetoric — but no NATO position
Still, Engler is clear that rhetoric alone is not enough.
“You can’t seriously claim to oppose militarism while remaining silent on NATO,” he argued. “NATO is the central vehicle for Western military intervention. If the NDP is not willing to challenge it, then the shift is more cosmetic than structural.”
While Lewis has taken strong positions on Gaza and U.S.-led wars, he has not yet articulated a position on NATO, leaving a key question unresolved.
A familiar pattern?
Engler situates this moment within a broader historical pattern inside the NDP.
“There is always a tension between grassroots movements and party leadership,” he said. “The question is whether Lewis will align with anti-war activists or fall into the same patterns we’ve seen before — supporting sanctions, supporting NATO expansion, and soft-pedaling Canada’s role in global conflicts.”
This reflects Engler’s longstanding view that Canadian foreign policy remains deeply integrated into U.S.-led geopolitical strategy, regardless of which party is in power.
Economic populism meets foreign policy limits
Lewis’s leadership campaign has emphasized confronting corporate power, expanding public ownership, and addressing the cost-of-living crisis.
Engler acknowledges the significance of this shift.
“There is clearly an attempt to reconnect with working-class politics and challenge corporate power,” he said. “That’s positive. But you cannot separate domestic inequality from foreign policy. Militarism and empire are part of the same system.”
In other words, a left-wing economic agenda that leaves foreign policy largely intact risks contradiction.
Gaza as a dividing line
On Palestine, Engler sees meaningful progress.
“Speaking clearly on Gaza matters,” he said. “But the real question is whether that translates into concrete policy: sanctions, ending arms trade, and breaking with the broader Western alliance that enables these actions.”
Lewis’s use of the term “genocide” and his framing of the issue in terms of international law mark a shift in tone — but, as Engler notes, the question is whether that clarity leads to action.
A call to push further
Engler’s conclusion is neither endorsement nor rejection — but a challenge to both the leader and the party’s base.
“If this is truly a politics of the 99%, then it has to include opposition to war, militarism, and imperialism,” he said. “Otherwise, it’s only half a transformation.” ..“Lewis has opened a door,” he added. “The question is whether he’s willing to walk through it.”
For Engler, that question is not Lewis’s alone to answer.
It is also up to party members, activists, and supporters — many of whom pushed for these ideas long before they reached the leadership level — to ensure that the current moment becomes a turning point rather than a temporary shift in rhetoric.
The direction of the party is no longer fixed.
But whether it continues moving toward a more anti-war, pro-worker, and independent political stance will depend on the pressure applied from within.
