Voters judge a party’s eligibility for leadership by their assessment of character as well as policies. Cowardice and embarrassing behaviour are universal disqualifiers. The most certain disqualifier is disunity.

In 1939, M.J. Coldwell risked splitting the CCF over his support for the Second World War, while his pacifist leader, J.S. Woodworth, was opposed. Except that the two men worked out an agreement that permitted party members to agree to disagree. Woodsworth maintained his honour and kept his leadership, although most party members were deeply committed to the fight against fascism.

In 1981, when the NDP struggled with one premier who supported the Charter of Rights and one who vehemently did not, with similar divisions across the party, Ed Broadbent and Allan Blakeney worked hard to prevent the disagreement from splitting the party. A vigorous convention battle ensued, but one that left no blood on the floor.

When you are the third party, survival is never guaranteed. You learn early that civil wars are a certain path to extinction.

The Conservatives did not survive their divisions over Meech, and spent 12 years in the wilderness. The Liberals’ century long commitment to party unity crumbled for a decade in the Martin/Chretien civil war; Harper soon followed.

The U.K. Tories are on the verge of another round of bloodletting. The post-Thatcher bloodshed kept them out of power for a decade. Voters wisely judge that parties — and especially party leadership candidates, who put their knives and their ambition ahead of their party and its reputation, should find another job.

Ambitious New Democrat leadership candidates should pay heed.

Yes, this is a painful and challenging moment for the party leaders in both Alberta and B.C., as they struggle to find a path to peace over a pipeline. Yes, there are hard feelings on each side, and unnecessarily harsh words have been exchanged. And no, it is not clear that efforts to find any form of compromise will succeed.

But how the disagreement is handled, and how respectful is the debate over it, will be as important in voters’ assessment of either party’s claim to govern. The party did not divide over going to war, nor did it split over the bitter constitutional wars. These were not accidents or good luck.

They were the product of New Democratic Party leaders and activists, who worked hard to ensure it did not happen, who smacked hard those who would use deep party differences for personal career gain, and who understood the restraint and caution that moments like these must entail.

Does it take courage for a Vancouver MP to grandstand at the expense of party unity in a leadership race about a controversial project deeply unpopular to his own base?

Is it wise, if you’re the only woman candidate, to fling epithets at the supporters of one of Canada’s — and one of the party’s — most admirable woman leaders.

Does it demonstrate leadership to deride a competing candidate seeking to find the balance a federal party’s leader must necessarily strike on internally divisive issues?

The questions answer themselves.

His competitors may or may not be terrified of Jagmeet Singh — though that is certainly the impression they gave to the media and debate watchers recently — but that’s not the point. What they should really be terrified of is the retribution that will follow for any candidate using the politics of insult about a controversial issue, while giving succour to the party’s enemies, damaging the party’s reputation and any chance it has at rebuilding under a new leader

They may be sure of one thing: they will return to the backbench post-convention and sit with a dunce cap on for a very long time. They will watch from their position of disgrace, their newly elected leader who understood the essential nature of party unity, for any political tribe serious about being a party of government.

New Democrat voters will support the candidate who demonstrates maturity, even if they do not agree on pipelines or other issues. Like every voter, they too decide on the basis of character, as well as policy.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Correction – June 19, 2017: This article was edited from a previous version that referred to “NDP” as “NPD” in a headline.

Robin V. Sears, a principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group, was an NDP strategist for 20 years.

Read more about: