Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh’s Calculated Sacrifice: Why Choosing Not to Call an Election Was an Act of Leadership

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in these blog posts are those of DeRico Symonds and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated organizations, employers, businesses or institutions. The objective is to spark dialogue, encourage alternative perspectives, and inspire people to think critically.

________________________________________________________________________________

#1

In the ever-shifting landscape of Canadian politics, few decisions speak louder than the ones not taken. One such decision was made by NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh—a leader often criticized by detractors for not leveraging his power to topple the Liberal minority government when he had the opportunity to "just call an election". But what if his restraint was, in fact, an act of leadership? What if it was a calculated sacrifice made not out of fear, but out of conviction? What if his decision was fighting for Canadians as he purported to do continuously?

At a critical moment in Canadian politics, Singh held the balance of power. With the Liberals governing in a minority, the New Democratic Party had the ability to trigger a federal election by withdrawing their support. It was clear at that time that the federal Conservative Party, under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre, was—at least in my view—at the peak of its popularity. Had an election been called then, the outcome may well have been different.

Many called on Singh to do just that, to challenge Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s leadership and attempt to shift the political winds. But Singh didn’t move. And in that pause, many saw weakness.

But it's possible the bigger picture was missed?

Jagmeet Singh understood something that many partisans refused to acknowledge: the very real possibility that calling an election at that time would not only collapse the Liberal government—it could very likely usher in a Conservative one (my opinion is not whether this is good or bad). And with that change in government, many progressive victories secured during the pandemic and beyond would be at risk: childcare deals, climate legislation, housing commitments, Indigenous reconciliation efforts, and pharma care progress. Singh wasn’t willing to trade incremental progress for ideological purity.

Let’s be clear—Singh had nothing to gain personally by holding back. He could have positioned himself as a power broker in a newly elected Parliament. He could have distanced himself from Liberal policy failures and won praise from critics eager for bold action. But instead, he chose the path of national interest over party gain.

He chose to fight for Canada, even at the expense of being misunderstood.

While others sought a dramatic political showdown, Singh saw the long game. He realized that forcing an election wasn’t just about political strategy—it was about people’s lives. He chose stability over chaos in a moment where uncertainty could have derailed recovery efforts and opened the door to a Conservative government that he fundamentally believed would roll back hard-fought progress.

It’s easy to forget in political discourse that restraint can be revolutionary. I'm not sure I believe that Singh’s decision was an act of fear, but of courage. He sacrificed the chance to enhance his own political capital to ensure that a more regressive government didn’t come to power (my opinion is not whether this would have been good or bad).

In doing so, he showed a rare kind of political leadership—one grounded in values, not vanity.

And whether or not you agree with his politics, that’s something Canadians should respect.

Might he have kept his seat and party status if he "just called an election?"