The early years of the 21st century are beginning
to take on shape and meaning. On the one hand the unchallenged dominance of a
global order centred on the dominance of neo-liberal economic structures and
the elites who govern them. On the other hand the tendencies towards a crisis
of legitimacy of this same political order. This developing crisis has several
inter-related aspects:
- ·
The declining rate of voter turnout in first
world Western countries
- ·
The fact that traditional mainstream “left”
parties have all adopted neo-liberal policies
- ·
The fact that voters are becoming disillusioned
more than ever with the choice between two flavours of the same ‘TINA’ politics
- ·
The consequent rise of third parties, and
‘maverick’ politicians like Donald Trump
The economic drivers behind this democratic crisis are
familiar:
- ·
The economics of globalisation, rapidly changing
the domestic economies of first world western economies – in general a move
away from industrial manufacture and an associated growth in less tangible
aspects of the economy.
- ·
The problematic twin of the free movement of capital
across borders: the not-so-free movement of labour across those same borders
- ·
The rise of international bodies which control
these massive and consequential flows of capital, and treaties and arrangements
which relate to these: the European ‘troika’, the TPPA and TISA agreements, the
IMF, the World Bank etc.
These international economic and political systems put
massive pressure on nation states to adopt neo-liberal economic policies or
suffer extreme consequences. The recent example of Greece standing up to the EU
and the banks is an example of this. The tragic surrender of Syriza to the
dictates of the EU demonstrates a fundamental truth for other nation states:
even if you vote in a government which promises radical changes, nothing really
significant will change. All of the big decisions have been made in advance by
big international players – The EU, corporates, banks and so on. Democratic
processes take place in a system where the limits have been decided in advance,
to suit the interests of these big players.
This developing democratic crisis of the first world nation
states is of course intimately tied up with the fallout from other parts of the
world. The break up and dissolution of states in Africa and across the middle
east, the civil war in Syria and the ongoing devastation within Iraq – these
unseemly and bloody consequences of Western imperialism and neo-colonialism
have a very human reality, in the shape of thousands of refugees and migrants
from those regions, attempting to find safety in the same countries responsible
for setting the stage for the catastrophes they have had to endure.
This twin flow of populations across borders, of refugees
escaping failing states and war, and economic migrants following the global
flows of capital and the dictates of neo-liberal economic imperatives
constitute the focal point of a resurgent right wing populist politics:
immigration.
Donald Trump points the finger at Mexicans and Muslims.
Nigel Farage from UK’s UKIP party points the finger at a variety of foreign
invaders, they could be Polish, Estonian or Syrian or some virtually any other
non-English nationality. Pauline Hanson has many fingers, which have pointed at
Aboriginal Australians and Asians in the past but now tend to point to anyone who
has anything to do with something called “islam”. Here in New Zealand our very
own Labour party point its finger at people with Chinese sounding surnames.
This racism of what I will term “right wing populism” is of
course only the dark and negative side of the phenomenon. There is a ‘positive’
aspect of each of these ideologies, something to inspire hope and grand
feelings as well as just prejudice and hate. Trump hooks into the imperial
legacy of the superpower and urges us to help him “make America Great again”.
Farage sells us a kind of English nationalism which harks back to the golden
age of 1950s Britain, basking in postwar virility and stiff upper lip goodness.
Hanson wants to embrace and promote some kind of Christian Australia.
It’s tempting to mock the stupidities and noxiousness of
these demagogues and the vile racism they employ and incite. It’s also tempting
to point out the very clear connections these movements have with much more
sinister and extreme far right groups. The British National Front in the UK,
the Klu Klux Klan in the US, and fascist elements in Australia –these groups
can be seen as the logical conclusion to right populist politics, and
undeniably profit from its success. The Brexit victory has led to a fivefold
increase in the number of racist assaults in the UK. Trump incites and legitimates
racist violence. (rise of far right in Europe, etc )
Without denying the vileness of this racist politics, and
without downplaying the links to outright fascist groups, I want to refrain
from this line of thought here for two reasons: firstly, the racism of right
populism is not extreme and ‘stupid’, it is ‘moderate’ and ‘reasonable’. We
need to pay careful attention to this distinction between outright fascist
racism and “reasonable” anti-immigrant sentiment. Secondly, right populism is a
mass phenomenon, and is not completely reducible to its undeniable racist
tendencies.
The question of how right wing populism relates to fascism
is important, but for now I want to put this to one side and concentrate on
what is really a very mainstream political current. I want to examine
- 1. Its social content – who supports right wing
populism, and what motivates those supporters?
- 2.
The question of its ‘anti – establishment’
credentials: does right wing populism really threaten neo-liberal global
capitalist elites?
- 3.
The question of how right populism can be
countered by a left internationalism.
1. Social content
The recent ‘Brexit’ result in the
UK provides some good data. (Of course, it’s potentially dangerous to
generalise BUT …). In the aftermath of the Brexit result, the “Leave” voters
were castigated as a group of racist, uneducated, working class goons who had
fallen for the propaganda of the nationalist right. In fact, the actual
demographics paint a more complex picture. ‘Leave’ support was in fact a cross
class group, with lots of middle class voters choosing this option alongside
poorer voters. They tended to be older, whiter and more provincial. They also
tended to endorse conservative values.
A widely referenced poll
conducted by Lord Ashcroft asked both ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ voters questions
about whether they thought things like feminism, multiculturalism and
immigration were a “force for good” or a “force for ill”. The results of the
survey appear at first glance to paint a very extreme picture: of the people
surveyed who identified feminism as a “force for ill”, 74% were ‘Leave’ voters.
Similar percentages resulted from other progressive labels such as ‘the green movement’,
social liberalism and of course immigration. We need to be careful here though:
the “of” is very important. The result does not mean that 74% of Leave voters
identified as anti-feminists, it means that OF the people who identified as
anti-feminists, 74% were Leave voters. So while it is undoubtably true that the
Brexit result has been a massive boost for the anti-immigrant right, it is not
correct to identify the 52% of people who voted ‘Leave’ with uniformly racist
and reactionary views.
Trump support in the US is of
course a different phenomenon, and although I have not read up on any similar
sort of statistics, they would probably paint a much more reactionary and conservative
picture than the Brexit stats. Nevertheless the apparently curious fact that a
significant group of Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to
Donald Trump tells us something about the volatility and complexity of support
for right populism.
2. Anti - Establishment?
There can be little doubt about
the fact that right populism is a form of resurgent nationalism. The fact that
a large chunk of its support comes from an older generation familiar with the
more comfortable and apparently secure world of the post WW2 boom years is
obviously linked with a backward looking politics. This nostalgia for a pre-
neo liberal era is informed by policy positions which overlap with progressive
positions: many socialists oppose the EU as it is a bulwark of neo-liberal
austerity across Europe for example, and Donald Trump opposes the TPPA and
advocates an isolationist foreign policy.
There are at least two
contradictions here. One of them is the fact that while right wing populism is
driven by the need of the elites in first world countries to maintain and
encourage mass support for their continued rule, the policies they promote
actually do run against the logic of 21st century global capitalism.
Mobile and frequently desperate populations of people seeking employment across
the globe fit in quite nicely with the needs of capital, rampaging across
borders constantly on the lookout for the cheapest and most vulnerable sources
of exploitable labour. The stated goals of people like Trump and Farage would
put a massive brake on economic growth, with potentially disastrous results for
the national economies of countries who embrace their policy prescriptions. The
de-valuation of the British pound, and the mad scramble to counter or mitigate
the more extreme effects of Brexit illustrate this point.
The second contradiction is the
fact that progressive political positions against things like the EU and the
TPPA have been taken over and framed by right populist thinking. To put this in
very crude general terms, ‘internationalism’ has become more and more
associated with the interests of neo-liberal global capitalist elites. The
right wing populist response is nationalism. The absent factor is a left
progressive internationalism. An example of this is the tiny, ineffectual and
embarrassing ‘Lexit’ or Left Exit campaign. Opposing the EU for very good
socialist reasons, the Lexit supporters helped usher in a disastrous result
framed almost entirely by a vicious anti-immigrant nationalist discourse. They
had good principles and progressive alternatives, but these tiny voices were
drowned out by the dominant nationalism.
3. Left internationalism?
Socialists oppose the politics of
racism and nationalism. We promote class solidarity across borders, and stand
with refugees and migrants against all forms of discrimination and abuse. We
promote the concept of open borders, and seek to establish bonds of unity and
solidarity with workers and oppressed peoples across the globe.
These principles were widespread
and motivated significant social change in the early years of the 20th
century. These very same principles and ideas are distinctly lacking from mainstream
debates around major political issues today. The question for socialists is:
how do we re-introduce and propagate these principles and ideas?
Without the influence of these
crucial principles, a vacuum opens up and allows right populism to flourish.
This is not always the province of clownish orange haired billionaires or
racist ‘Little Englanders’. I want to conclude this talk with a quote taken
from a recent Metro magazine. (This
is an Auckland based magazine aimed at the coffee drinking Ponsonby crowd …).
The topic is the housing crisis in Auckland, and the issue of immigration:
“And Brexit has made it clear that
questions such as high levels of immigration can’t be swept under the carpet
forever. Key can insist all he likes that we’re getting high-skilled immigrants
but, as Bernard Hickey has pointed out, it’s not “doctors, filmmakers and
software engineers” who are pouring in. The figures show we’re mostly importing
a high number of lowly paid chefs, retail managers, tour guides and hospitality
workers.
And so the game is finally on and
national politics has suddenly become dynamic rather than plainly dispiriting.
Instead of being told: “There, there, don’t you worry your pretty little head
about it…,” National is going to have to change its tune and come up with some
meaningful, effective policies in time for the election — not least to head off
the spectre of Winston Peters, long-time opponent of unfettered immigration,
holding the balance of power.
The government has got itself into a
mess over the interrelated issues of immigration, house prices and housing the
homeless by denying for years they are a problem and then not coming up with a
coherent or plausible plan to solve any of them.”
