The Labour Party, the main opposition party in UK, just elected a so called “extremist” politician as their leader.
Jeremy Corbyn, a veteran leftist that for decades has been on the party fringes, won a landslide majority in the second biggest party in the Parliament.
His election caused a real backlash. The Labour Party had become a wining party because of its shift to the center of the political spectrum. For this reason it was rebranded as the “New Labour”.
Now with the election of Corbyn, should we talk about a clash between “Old” versus ‘New”?
Which factors have been at play to justify the election of an out of the fashion radical politician like Corbyn?
In an era where we were used to seeing parties winning at the center of the political spectrum, we literally see not only in UK but all over Europe the opposite phenomenon with an increasing number of citizens putting their faith in parties that are challenging the traditional status quo.
Analysts explain this trend as “protest” voting when people become increasingly dissatisfied from mainstream politics or, worse, they become disenfranchised from the entire society.
In some cases new populist platforms emerge and win elections or are good enough to assemble enough votes to undermine the action of traditional players; in some other cases also as reaction to what was just described, traditional parties have to reinvent themselves.
Certainly there is a nexus between populist and radical politics. Both are against the status quo, both thrive on people’s dissatisfaction and frustration; both embolden a new transformative vision of society.
Populism after all is about the ability to capture people’s negative feelings and echo them into new, simplistic or unrealistic policy solutions that have the power to deliver some sort of relief to people’s frustrations.
Populist politicians are also those able to break with the traditional rules of politics and offer fresh and often straightforward messages able to captivate the audience.
This was the case of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and it is the same with Donald Trump in the USA. They often speak what the masses want to hear, cannily unpacking extremely complex problems by offering simplistic solutions.
Radical politics instead can offer very well elaborated policies that go against the system. They do not advocate for reform, they ask for bold, often almost revolutionary changes.
If Corbyin could be hardly framed as a populist politician, certainly he has always personalized the image of the politician going after unthinkable, unorthodox policies. He always been in the trenches and he was never afraid to stand for his idealism. Bernie Sanders in the USA is also another example of bold, radical policies that are able to engage the voters in a way that Hillary Clinton will never ever manage to replicate.
This is highly admirable: no matter what, you do not give up on your position, you stay true to your values.
Not afraid of his convictions even if the large majority of his own party members were dead strong against, Corbyin is certainly a gutsy politician.
Might it be the fact that western societies are undergoing drastic changes at demographic, social, economic and environmental levels that explains why and how voters are shifting towards radical and populist politics?
After all the western societies are experiencing special times. Unfortunately the special here has only a negative connotation.
Well aware but also overwhelmed by the structural changes unfolding in what used to be a welfare based and prosperous society, citizens in general are not only on the defensive, with many of them being carried away by emotions and attractive slogans instead of reacting to the common challenges with common sense.
They end up abandoning mainstream politics.
Out there, populists offer the easy way while the radicals offer the long way that of course is not necessarily right. New parties offering moderation can also emerge and demand change but normally are not as attractive as populists and radicals are.
Not necessarily everything that is not mainstreaming is bad. Rather the contrary even in radical politics you can find something good.
Radicals, working at the extreme of the spectrum, propose uncompromising positions for the many real problems faced by the people. In many cases, radicals are the only ones able to see the problems for what they really are and they are not afraid to go to their root causes.
Think about criticisms against the big banks behind capitalism or the way world trade is governed. The solutions from a radical perspective would be a total overhaul of the economic system, underpinning the global economy something that might not be feasible.
Still, while their recipes might be wrong, some of their ingredients might be instead good enough to be used in the hodgepodge of what I call common sense politics or in other words, the moderate way of doing politics.
Doing moderate politics is about the ability to distinguish the middle ground between white and black. Something proposed as radical can be actually repackaged, without losing its values, in a way that the entire society can really benefit from.
While moderate politics is about common sense, it should not be taken for timid approaches or lack of courage. When common sense cries for justice and fairness, the moderate politics must be able to master the same guts of the radical politician. In some circumstances moderate politicians must entirely embrace radical politics in order to achieve change. This is something being shown by Chancellor Markel while dealing with the refugee crisis in Europe.
Radical politics if framed within a strong constitutional framework can be a force for good. They can keep pressure on the center so that the moderate politician does not lose sight of problems.
Radical politics are mastered by the underdogs and we all know that underdogs like Corbyin can offer a real different perspective. It might be right or wrong, appealing or laughable but still deserving attention from the mainstream.
Radical politicians are persons truly passionate and determined to achieve change. They are highly idealistic.
With a Don Quixote at the helm, will the Labour Party pass to irrelevance or with its new boldness will be able to conquer the electorate and change society? Meanwhile with Malcolm Turnball becoming the new PM in Australia, there is still hope for moderate politics to play a meaningful role.
Add new comment