Jonas Fossli Gjersø writes:
As a Scandinavian who has spent more than a decade living
in Britain, nothing has made me feel more foreign than observing the current
Labour leadership election.
From his style to his policies Mr Corbyn would, in
Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat.
His
policy-platform places him squarely in the Norwegian Labour Party from which
the last leader is such a widely respected establishment figure that upon
resignation he became the current Secretary-General of NATO. [To this who say that that is the difference, what about Sweden and Finland?]
Yet, here in the United Kingdom a
politician who makes similar policy-proposals, indeed those that form the very
bedrock of the Nordic-model, is brandished as an extremist of the hard-left and
a danger to society.
So who is right?
Is the Norwegian
Labour movement some dangerous extremist group that unknowingly has occupied
the furthest leftist fringe of the political spectrum?
If so, a casual glance
at the UN’s
Human Development Index would
suggest that Norway certainly has not suffered as a result of successive
Labour-dominated governments.
Or is it, perhaps, that the British media’s
portrayal of Corbyn, and by extent his policies are somewhat exaggerated and
verging on the realm of character assassination rather than objective analysis and
journalism?
It is probably not without reason
that a recent report by the European Broadcasting Union found that the United
Kingdom among all of the EU member-states (+Albania, FYROM & Turkey) scores the lowest in levels of trust in written media.
That no matter
how many members his election as leader has drawn (currently trebled Labour
membership from ca. 180k to 560k), or how popular his political rallies are, the
Labour Party under his leadership is condemned to lose the 2020 general
election.
The premise of this analysis seems to be based on the truism that the
British electorate are permanently and irredeemably ‘small-c conservative’ and
that no political party can win without reaching out to this elusive
centre-ground of British politics.
Whereas this strategy might have
accounted for Tony Blair’s electoral victories in the late-90s, it becomes less
persuasive when applied to the post-2008 era.
The socio-economic structural changes Britain has undergone
since the financial crisis has
severely discredited the neoliberal orthodoxy in both academia and amid the
general public, as the trend of widening income and wealth inequality has left far more economic losers than
beneficiaries in its wake.
I would suggest that tapping into this growing
demographic among an increasingly polarised electorate makes Mr Corbyn’s
distinctiveness as a social-democratic candidate an asset rather than a
liability.
Another moniker Mr Corbyn’s
detractors often apply to his policies are that they derive from some so-called
extreme of the political spectrum, that they are ‘hard left’ and ergo
hopelessly idealistic and unworkable.
To a Norwegian observer such as myself I
find this characterisation puzzling.
Mr Corbyn’s policy-platform, particularly
in regard to his domestic policies are largely identical with the Norwegian Labour Party manifesto.
Railway
nationalisation, partial or full state ownership of key companies or sectors,
universal healthcare provisions, state-funded house-building, no tuition fee
education, education grants and loans to name but a few, enjoy near universal
support among the Norwegian electorate, in fact, they are so mainstream that
not even the most right-wing of Norwegian political parties would challenge
them.
And this is not only the case in
Norway, but has been integral to the social-democratic post-war consensus in
all the Nordic countries.
Judging by almost any measure of social indicators
these policies have been a success, the Nordic region enjoys some of the world’s
highest living standards and
presumably should be a model to be emulated rather than avoided.
ly the
Nordic region is no earthly paradise and there are cultural, economic and
historical differences between the UK and Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden, but if there is such a thing as a ‘best practice approach’ in public
policy the Nordic model would probably be it and, at any measure, a useful
benchmark for Britain to move towards.
The whole controversy surrounding
Mr Corbyn probably betrays more about Britain’s class divisions and how far the
UK’s political spectrum has shifted to the right since the early-1980s, than it
does of the practicality of his policy-proposals.
Whereas in Norway there is a
high-degree of media ownership fragmentation, they are sometimes owned by
not-for-profit foundations and all receive state subsidies based on
circulation, which in turn ensures a modicum of objectivity and plurality of
opinion.
Their British counterparts are often highly partisan and espouse a
largely right-wing editorial agenda.
In contrast, British media ownership is
highly concentrated: 70% of national newspapers are owned by just three
companies and a third are owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News UK.
Since 51% of British journalists are among the privately
educated 7% it is not
surprising that they have internalised an ideology that serves their own
privileged class interest, consciously or not, rather than that of the wider
population.
This raises the question of whether British politicians should
solely be reacting to the agenda of the conservative-oriented press, or that
they themselves should set out visions for how society should be organised to
better serve the interests of the electorate.
I would suggest the latter
despite what self-proclaimed political ‘realists’ might think.
Imagine what
this cadre of ‘centrist’ commentators would have to say about a radical project
such as the NHS today had it not been introduced in the late-1940s.
The same
goes for other widely cherished national institutions such as the BBC. For
democracy to function, a plurality of views must be offered a platform and
indeed also receive thorough scrutiny by the press.
Instead, the British media has focused its reporting on the
personal characteristics of Mr Corbyn, usually in rather unflattering terms,
and shown scant or shallow regard to his policy-agenda.
Equally, a comparative approach
would be useful to broaden the British political debate instead of simply
comparing his candidature to that of Michael Foot or Tony Blair who stood under
very different socio-economic conditions.
What a direct comparison of Britain
with other similar European states would reveal is both the dire condition of British living-standards for populations particularly
outside London and how conventionally social-democratic Mr Corbyn’s policies are.
You might
agree or disagree with his political position, but it is still far too early to
discount Mr Corbyn’s potential success at the next general election –
particularly if he manages to mobilise support from the ca. 40% of the
electorate who regularly fail to cast their ballot in elections.
Indeed, just
as few might have recognised the socio-economic and ideological structural
changes which converged to underpin Margaret Thatcher’s meteoric rise in the
early-1980s, we cannot exclude the possibility that we are witnessing the
social-democratic mirror image of that process today, with a prevailing wind
from the left rather than the right.
As to foreign policy, Corbyn is days away from being by far the biggest figure on the Western European Left. His influence could, should and will be enormous.
No comments:
Post a Comment