The Labour Party in the UK has a traditional penchant towards the middle class, low-income groups and working class people. The party under the leadership of former Prime Minister (PM) Tony Blair pursued that traditional policy. In turn, people elected his party to office for three consecutive terms. Blair served two full terms as the PM. At the beginning of his third term, he transferred the leadership of the party as well as of the government to his ambitious deputy PM, Gordon Brown. The Conservative Party won the elections held in 2010 and marked the end of over 13 years of rule by the Labour Party.
Why did the Labour Party lose the election? Apart from the fact that people prefer a change no matter how brilliant the performance of the ruling party, Tony Blair’s unscrupulous policies in the Middle East and his deep obsession to dislodge Saddam Hussein cost the party dearly. In pursuit of regime change in Iraq Blair became an exuberant partner of former US President George Bush. The Bush administration orchestrated the blatantly false accusation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), enticed a group of countries under the Coalition of the Willing and invaded Iraq in 2002. The UN Security Council did not endorse the invasion and people in the UK overwhelmingly opposed the war. They did not believe Baghdad was in possession of WMDs and apprehended that the war would bring about a catastrophe in the region. Some of his cabinet members, including the foreign minister, resigned in protest of Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq. The defeat of the Labour Party in subsequent local and parliamentary elections was the corollary of the flawed policy of its leadership.
Now, Jeremy Corbyn has taken over the leadership of the Labour Party. He met formidable opposition from the Conservative leadership and resolved to chart a new trajectory for the party. He is opposed to bombing in Syria, half-hearted about the UK’s integration in the European Union and has opted to withdraw from the military alliance in NATO. Corbyn favours the creation of the National Education Service with the objective of promoting universal education in the country and imposing higher taxes on the wealthy. He welcomes investment even from China as long as it creates more jobs and prefers a diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine issue. He does not believe trade and economic sanctions will expel Russia out of Ukraine and end the occupation in Crimea. Corbyn has called for exorcising the monarchy, which many at home and abroad characterise as obsolete and a financially burdensome institution that is incongruous with democracy. He will face a litmus test in the coming days in formulating economic policy that aims at serving the middle class and the low-income groups, a task his immediate predecessor(s) miserably failed. The party, as a consequence, descended into almost irrelevance.
In mid-October, the Canadians elected a new government resoundingly rejecting the conservative government’s attempts to shift the country towards the right. The Liberal Democratic Party led by Justin Trudeau emerged as the single largest party in parliament securing majority seats and formed a new government. Trudeau has reenergised the party since its devastating electoral debacle four years ago and has promised to raise taxes on the rich to boost government spending. Canada shifted to the right under the previous government, which had lowered sales and corporate taxes, ignored climate change and opposed the Iran nuclear deal. Canada joined the US-led coalition in bombing Islamic State (IS) bases in Iraq and Syria but egregiously refrained from accepting refugees from the conflict zone. Europe has already accepted more than 200,000 refugees fleeing from Syria and Iraq, and another 700,000 are on the move towards Europe. Canada’s response to the humanitarian crisis has been utterly brazen.
In a post election victory speech Trudeau said, “We won this election because we listened. You told us it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet and to get ahead. You told us you were concerned about your retirement. I am not the one who made history tonight. You are.” He promised to ease regulations for legal immigrants, accept Syrian refugees, address climate change, raise taxes on the wealthy and use deficit spending to improve infrastructure. Trudeau decided to withdraw Canadian troops from the combat operation in Syria but agreed to assign military to train the security forces in Iraq. Trudeau assured he would seek a broader relationship with the US rather than one that “focuses on single disagreement”. By positioning to raise taxes on the wealthy and resolving to ease the hardships of low-income earners, Trudeau has aligned himself and his party to the centre-left. This heralds a new direction in Canadian politics.
Pierre Trudeau, the longest serving PM, had introduced multiculturalism and passed a legislation known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that put an end to British parliament’s interference in Canada’s laws and Constitution. I hope Justin Trudeau, drawing inspiration from his father’s legacy, will dissolve the last bond with the British monarchy.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a presidential hopeful from the Democratic Party in the US, has brought several issues into political discourse. He pointed out that 90 percent of the resources of the country are owned by 0.10 percent of the population and 57 percent of all new income ends up with the top one percent. Sanders argued that the conglomerates of big business, billionaires and millionaires provide huge funds to aspirants in the state legislatures, Congress and the presidential candidates who, in turn, become hostage to these vested interest groups. National interests become subservient to parochial interests. In the process, politics and, by extension the economy, came under the full dominance of big business. Sanders remonstrated that this dominance by the wealthy impedes the functioning of democracy and deters the common people from having access to national wealth and resources. Consequently, the rich become richer and the middle class more marginalised. Sanders believes that the current state of affairs is politically corrupt, morally wrong and must be redressed.
Sanders has branded himself as a socialist and has claimed unregulated capitalism will make the situation worse. He does not want the government to own the industries and big business. Instead, he wants higher taxes on the rich to finance programmes such as Medicare, education, public transportation and rehabilitation of social infrastructure. Sanders, at the same time, would like to grant tax breaks to low-income groups.
Sanders has waged a battle against big business and the outcome of the battle is not beyond prediction. But he has been able to convey the message that unregulated capitalism breeds income inequality and thereby creates discontent in society. His message has been well-received by the young and liberals. Even some of the hawkish Republican candidates, in the debate forum, felt constrained to admit the hardships unfolded on the low-income groups at the price hikes of essential food items. Some of them traced their humble origin to express solidarity that they share the pains of being dispossessed. But they would not move further to grant tax breaks to the poor, enlarge healthcare and raise corporate tax on the wealthy. The reason is obvious: they are being funded by big business and they are committed to safeguarding the interests of big business even at the expense of national interests.
The writer is a former official of the United Nations