HOW TONY BLAIR LOST THE ELECTIONS (FOR PUBLICATION ON SUNDAY THE 14^TH MAY 2005)

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador)

Though the Labor Party won Tony Blair lost the British elections. This can be the only conclusion one can draw from the results of the last general elections. Single handedly he brought down the 161seat majority in Parliament to 60 seats. The voters dealt him “a bloody nose” mainly because as a  former Laborite and Respect Party member elected from East London  put it, Iraq,  described by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook as “an unpopular war based on false intelligence and launched on doubtful legality”. Nullifying Blair’s call for unity by leaving the Iraq war behind Robin Cook points out that Iraq war was universally perceived as Blair’s personal responsibility and  joins the  choric call as to whether Blair “should not make way for a new leader who does not have close identification with the war in Iraq  and therefore has a better prospect of rebuilding unity”. Senior Labor leaders have already called on Tony Blair to abandon his Presidential style of governance and declare his date of departure.

Blair’s style of government had been denounced by Robin Cook and Clare Short while resigning from the Cabinet as one of non-collegiate Cabinet “consensus” where decisions taken by Blair(and perhaps by Bush) was presented to Parliament as British government’s unwavering policy which should be adopted to safeguard the interests of Britain. Robin Cook has called upon Blair “to reflect whether he can successfully modify his way of working and cut with the grain of values, ethos and priorities of the Labor Party”. Blair will need the skills of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan in constructing a cabinet reflecting different segments of Labor party. Labor won the first two elections because of the popularity of Blair, writes Robin Cook, but won the third despite Blair’s loss of popularity. So, advises Blairite former Minister Stephen Byers,  it would be a big mistake to conduct the state and party affairs on the  “business a usual” basis. Hard left has already called for Blair to resign immediately while Compass, one of the faster growing constituency pressure groups within the Labor Party, finds it clearly impossible to renew the Labor mission in a government led by Tony Blair and calls for a leadership change in favor of Chancellor of Exchequer Gordon Brown. If Tony Blair is to be credited with transforming an unelectable Labor Party into one which have created history by wining three successive general elections many are left wondering (some traditional Laborites accusing Blair of betrayal of core Labor values) whether Tony Blair has not left behind the true spirit of Labor Party embedded in socialism. Blair government has transited in the years in power from relinquishment of the Bank of England which after years of struggle Labor nationalized in 1945 to privatization of the air to proposing the creation of “foundation hospitals” which are to be given the right to raise their own financing. Blair revolution of the soul of the Labor Party has been criticized by the former Deputy leader of the party Roy Hattersley as “pure gibberish. The Blair Revolution wanting Labor to be a synthesis which unites Left and Center rejects ideology and replaces it with banalities” Long time Labor MP(1958-87) Leo Abse sees Blair’s penchant for “synthesis” as analogous to Marquis de Sade’s idealization of his doctrine of “mixture”. While Sade’s eulogies to the fudges     took him to the mental asylum Blair’s fudging took him to the Premiership of Britain. Leo Abse’s psychoanalytic scrutiny of Blair’s psyche  as an emotionally immature man, scarred by his traumatic childhood, fearful of confrontation and seeking refuge in evasiveness may appear harsh to many. But one can not deny Blair’s public suggestion of Laborites dissenting from his modernizing project to have their heads examined “can develop into a dangerous assault upon Parliamentary democracy; opposition denied expression in West Minister is incitement to democrats to turn to extra-parliamentary actions”.

Blair’s post-election contrition expressed on the steps of 10 Downing Street is unlikely to appease the Labor Party. Many are asking for his head to roll. Robin Cook found it odd that Tony Blair’s response to the election results was to spend the weekend reshuffling his cabinet while a more fitting response “might have been to take time out to reflect on the implications of the results for how long he  stays in his own job”. Despite Downing Street’s disavowal of any suggestion of Blair resignation speculations are rife about the timing of his departure. It is speculated that (a) Blair may resign after hosting the G-8 summit in July, (b) after British referendum on EU Constitution in the spring of next year, or (c) at the Labor Party Conference in the autumn of 2006. The two major parties are poles apart on Europe. While Labor advocates a yes-vote on EU Constitution and the Euro the Conservative Party is opposed to both and a host of other European regulations. The Britons, by and large, do not appear to be keen on surrendering sovereignty to a “suspect” group pf people in Brussels though they do consider themselves as part of Europe. One could be sailing in uncharted water by citing the German example who despite their love and devotion to Deutsche mark  have now embraced the euro. Perhaps the Germans, their devotion to democratic way of life notwithstanding, look upon their leaders with a “father knows best” attitude  coupled with the German leaders incessant efforts to totally immerse themselves in every thing European. Therefore Vladimir Putin’s May 9^th 60^th Victory anniversary speech, particularly mentioning that “we will not forget the German anti-fascists who suffered for the idea of a democratic progressive future for Germany”, must have brought the fragrance of spring flowers to Gerhard Schroeder. As opposed to Teutonic discipline the British, their natural civility notwithstanding, have often shown the mutinous traits of Fletcher Christian( of HMS Bounty fame) by beheading King Charles I and throwing  Churchill out of office after he brought victory over Nazi Germany to the Britons as examples among many. The British are unlikely to agree with running with the hare and hunting with the hound. Being more discerning among the Europeans the British are more likely to undertake forensic investigation with unrelaxed vigil into Blair’s conduct of affairs.

One of Tony Blair’s  closest supporters Lord Falconer has  admitted that Iraq has been the single biggest factor in Labor’s reverses. Michael Howard, the Conservative Party leader who backed military action in Iraq had accused Blair of dishonesty about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. But the Conservative Party’s policies on exit strategy and terror control orders are not significantly different from those of the Labor Party. But the moot question remains as to whether Tony Blair could, even if he had differed with President Bush, afford  to oppose American determination to wage an unjust war on Iraq. Perhaps not. If Robert Kagan’s thesis which Tony Blair found interesting but one of many on Europe losing its centrality with the end of the cold war and decolonization signaling the most massive retrenchment of European power in the history of the world coupled with unparalleled American military power dwarfing all other powers in the world is to be given credence then Tony Blair had no other option but to join to Bush camp. One could fault Blair for not joining the Sino-Russian-French-German efforts to bring about some semblance of multi-polarity in the aftermath of the cold war to arrest the emergence of unipolarity which saw transatlanticism’s transition to post-atlanticism. Under the old system the Europeans and the Americans used to consult one another, were sensitive to each other’s concerns, were respectful to international laws and institutions. Under the new system the US decides unilaterally, often without prior consultation with the European allies who are expected to obey. Perhaps Tony Blair had realized what Professor Michael Glennon had theorized about the incompatibility of the new global configuration resultant of the towering preeminence of American power with the way the UNSC was framed to work.

Leo Abse, however, is less sanguine about Blair’s comprehension of global turbulence. He thinks that like Bush Blair is a great believer that God is on his side and despite Pope John Paul’s and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury’s condemnation of the Iraq war, Blair’s “personal communion with the Lord as he mediates during his incessant Bible-reading has left Blair confident that when the day comes for him to appear before God the Lord’s judgment and his own will coincide”. In this communion between God and Blair the British Prime Minister ignored not only the Europeans who were angered at the new definition of “sovereignty” as meaning freedom of the US actions anywhere and the concept of non-interference in the territory of others subordinated to the need by the US to act against perceived threats but also Britain’s long standing tradition of fairness and justice. That Saddam Hussein could have been disposed of in other ways without inflicting terrible damage to a people who had already been transported to a pre-industrial society by the first Gulf War seems to have escaped Blair’s imagination.

In gist, the young Tony Blair (he just turned 52 years of age) will be remembered by the posterity as a leader lacking in charisma of Hugh Gaitskell or Aneurin Bevan, suffering from ambivalence but successful in bringing about a historical milestone of three successive Labor victories. Participation in an unjust war will, perhaps, wash away his remarkable achievements(  credit appropriately should go to Gordon Brown) in presenting the British people with a robust economy. One hopes his successor will bring back the values for which post-colonial Britain has been worshipped around the world as the quintessential temple of democracy.