While most of us are
still going through some sort of Brexit-shock the Labour party
embarks onto the process of a leadership contest and an inner-party
conflict from which it might not return. Corbyn, the current leader
of Labour, might or might not be criticized for his leadership
strategy, but he is certainly not to be blamed for the general crisis
Labour, the country and neoliberal democracies more generally are
going through at the moment. If he can be blamed for anything then
that he represents people who were trying to find progressive ways
out of this crisis. The overwhelming problem is, however, that this
is a crisis which it might not be possible to solve within the
political and economical structure that is currently to our
disposition – more generally due to the relation between politics
and the economical structure in neoliberal democracies and more
particularly due to the electoral system in the UK which makes it
difficult for the big parties to split up and form coalitions.
Whoever will be
elected as next Labour leader will have the option to either adjust
to the rhetorics and politics of the conservatives by trying to
soften their language and by referring to ideals of social justice
without being able to implement them. Or he or she will try to find a
different language, one which aims at recreating a left-wing
discourse which does not only react passively to the program of the
conservative party and profit-driven market tendencies but one which
contains the vision of a better future for everyone together. But
let's face it - in the first case Labour will not be more likely to
win elections than before its members voted for Corbyn since the
neo-liberal discourse of the Conservatives will always sound more
coherent and convincing when presented from a right-wing perspective
– even when it takes on fascist, populist tones. On the other hand,
if it moves towards the second option it will very likely be smashed
by inner-party conflicts, like at the moment, since any radical
progressive approach will seem to threaten potential short-term
successes the party still believes it could gain.
In this situation,
the revolt against Corbyn seems to me rather a way of denying the
gravity of the crisis Labour and left-wing politics are in; a crisis
that has not been created by the Brexit but which must have been
haunting the party since a long time. Corbyn's leadership has been
treated from the very beginning by many party members but also by
public media as a mistake rather than as a symptom that once
identified and understood could direct the way to a cure. With cure I
don't mean a process of healing which would restore the old strength
of the workers' Labour party neither the popularity of its reformed
version as New Labour. What I mean is rather a process which would
trigger profound reconstruction of a political strategy for the Left.
It is not that, like in the case of the referendum, for example,
people who voted for Corbyn had been deluded or seduced by some
simple, populist rhetorics - even though many might argue that this
was exactly the case. But I think it was rather the opposite – the
election of Corbyn was a sign for the need for a more profound hence
non-populist) and more radical left-wing party politics. One that
does not prioritize the media-popularity of professional leader
figures but which aims at politicizing the people. Corbynmania, I
therefore argue, was an event that had seen a majority of Labour
members hearing something in the way how this wing part of the party
spoke that is otherwise missing in the established jargon of a Left
trying to be the more social version of the right. The euphoria of
this manic phase which seems now in the process of turning into
another depression or return to established forms of party politics,
was an expression of a sense of hope and a desire for something new –
and hence a profoundly left-wing moment. It captured an imagination
of some kind of future politics which would not be based on the
ability of politicians to seduce their voters but which would be
based on a political culture that would take people and their
situation seriously and support them in becoming political agents
rather than mere consumers – it was, if you want, a utopian moment
in the midst of a growing disaster.
Now seeing and
fixing this not-yet-existent form of future politics as incarnated in
the figure of Corbyn is a problem, because it forces him to become a
type of leader as which he has not been elected. But his team has, I
think, tried to conserve and implement parts of the momentum that had
let to his election. Had I decided to take part in the election of
the new Labour party leader I would have not voted for him. Too much
did he represent to me a male leftwing politics of the last century.
But now, after having experienced Corbyn's presence and strategy
through what I have read in the news (I hence cannot comment on
inner-party issues related to his leadership style), I started
recognizing a different tone/sound in politics that could actually
bring Labour or whatever left-wing party there might be in the future
closer to the realities of the working and middle class (and the two
of them together) – closer than any leader who will try to be on
the safe side by making concessions in regards to the racist
anti-immigration arguments (like Cooper did) or by emphatically
embracing the European Union instead of signaling space for an
absolutely justified critique of it as in the 7-out-of-ten comment
for which Corbyn has been and is being criticized widely. Also the
argument that his team rejected a common action where Blair and
Corbyn would have fought on one side for remaining in the EU is to my
mind weak because it dramatically simplifies the complexity and
gravity of the Brexit-vote – suggesting that if Corbyn and Blair
had rallied together we wouldn't be in the dreadful and dangerous
mess we are in at the moment.
So what convinced me
in the way how Corbyn and his team approached left-wing politics was
their emphasis on a rational and sophisticated, hence complex,
dialogue with the voters. Although often slow, which probably was not
only a result of the time some arguments or statements need in order
to be developed but also caused by the constant resistance he was
facing within his own party, his contributions to the debate around
the referendum were political in the sense that they were arguments
that would help workers and middle-class people understand what
voting remain meant and why it was in their interest to vote for
remaining in the EU even if this would not solve all the issues
people are struggling with today. Now tday he is mainly criticized
for being too complex, too rational and too much a man of principle.
But this critique, to my mind, challenges exactly those moves that
could have potentially sparked off (in future … and slowly) new
forms of left-wing politics. A politics which can not be won by
focusing on the choice of a correct, charismatic and euphoric leader
figure but would require Labour or left-wing politicians who enter
into a serious, radical and complex dialogue with their voters more
generally. How dangerous but all the more necessary such a type of
politics has become can be seen in the tragic case of Jo Cox.
This is the
potential I see in Corbyn's attempt to change the speech of left-wing
politics. The bad news however is that this type of politics will
indeed not win any elections in the short-term. But even worse is
that if Labour doesn't face the fundamental crisis of its current
political non-existence then it will not win any elections ever again
(to put it drastically). In this respect, I see in the current run
against Corbyn a projection of a profound crisis onto someone who
cannot be blamed for it. To my mind the current outrage against
Corbyn even resembles dangerously what is happening on the right in
regards to immigrants. Both, Corbyn representing a different type of
politics, as well as the immigrants who are being seen as the
personified other are blamed for the dead ends created by the crisis
of neoliberal democracies. It might be correct that Corbyn as a
person is not the right one to lead this party. But forcing him to
step down while criticizing him for having tried to step out of a
crisis, will quite certainly close down the little gap for a profound
reform of Labour and its ability to create a better future that –
maybe - opened in the course of Corbynmania and co. If Tony Blair
says, as he did in relation to Bernie Sanders' popularity in the US,
that he stopped understanding today's politics then this could
potentially be a hopeful thing – however, it will turn into a total
catastrophe, potentially the biggest that the world has ever seen, if
it is only the right in the form of Trumps, Farages or Johnsons which
tries to find ways of securing its power within the current political
vacuum.
