May’s manifesto and the evolving conservatism

Acasual visitor to Britain – and there a lots of them each summer – will be forgiven for not being aware, except in the media, that the country is in the midst of a general election campaign. Unlike India where electoral politics is a great festival and, often, a wonderful tamasha, election campaigns in European countries are increasingly becoming a bit too discreet for my tastes. This year’s British election is likely to be even more so because no one really doubts the eventual outcome: a resounding win for the Conservative Party led by Theresa May.

Those who fantasised that last year’s Brexit vote would trigger a Remain backlash are likely to be woefully disappointed. A life outside the European Union is fast becoming a fait accompli, with, at best, Scotland and Northern Ireland holding out.

How Theresa May managed to transform a narrow win for leaving the EU into something much more substantial is an interesting subject for political study. However, while it is possible to draw Indian analogies, what is of wider interest is how May successfully transformed the Conservative Party into epitomising the great British consensus – just as the now reviled Tony Blair had managed to do with his New Labour and the ‘Third way’.

The Conservative Party in Britain is a very interesting phenomenon for two obvious reasons. First, it has been in the business of politics – in its present avatar – since at least the past 150 years. Secondly, while there is a loose philosophy of conservatism that was best epitomised by Edmund Burke and subsequently bolstered by philosophers such as Isaiah Berlin and Michael Oakeshott, it has never been an ideologically dogmatic party. Like Hinduism it has been a way of life that has personified the best of Britishness. However, its philosophy of governance has always been flexible. Consequently, various streams of conservatism have happily (at times uneasily) coexisted under the banner of the Conservative Party.

What we today know as conservatism in both Britain and, across the Atlantic, in a section of the Republican Party, owes considerably to the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. In a curious sort of way, Thatcher was probably the most ideological British Prime Minister ever. She believed in the power of free markets, much more than she believed in ‘society’ or even the nation. Consequently, rolling back the state has somehow become equated with the Right and, in recent times, there is a growing schism between what is called the ‘economic’ Right and the ‘cultural’ Right.

There was a context to Thatcherism. After World War 2, and as a consequence of Fabian socialist ideas, the state had become too bloated. In seeking to occupy what the Nehruvians described as the “commanding heights” of the economy, successive governments had over-reached themselves. There was a need for correctives and Thatcherism came into its own in facilitating privatisation – a process that also got a boost in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union under its own weight.

However, while globalisation was the mantra of the 1990s, the appeal of market-driven economics suffered a grave setback following the financial crisis that has plagued much of the 21st century. While emerging economies such as China and India have done well from globalisation, insufficient attention has been paid to the cultural facets of nationhood. Mass immigration, in particular, has been a great disrupter. And when combined with the crisis of manufacturing industries, the outcome has been the growth of populism. In recent years, there has been a backlash against economic and cultural elites that have increasingly become disconnected from the grassroots.

The Conservative Party manifesto released last Thursday is an important document in the context of the misgivings over unchecked market economics and reduction in the capacity of the state. In seeking to “reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist Left and the libertarian Right” the Conservative Party has attempted to blend entrepreneurial with cultural impulses.

“Rather than pursue an agenda based on a supposed centre ground defined… by elites in Westminster,” says the manifesto, “we will govern in the interests of the mainstream of the British public.” This is an important formulation as it seeks to seeks to give a place to the disquiet of those Hilary Clinton had sneeringly brushed aside as a collection of “deplorables.”

Likewise, given the paralysis that has gripped a large section of global capitalism, there is a recognition that the state still has a role – as a force for the good and as a humane cushion against the “cult of selfish individualism.” In Theresa May’s words: “True conservatism means a commitment to country and community; a belief not just in society but in the good that government can do.” The party has committed itself to a national living wage and promised a cap on energy prices – something that would have horrified Thatcher, but which opens a window of erstwhile Labour voters to switch their support to the Conservatives.

It is instructive to read these shifts in the British Conservative Party in a week that will see the Narendra Modi observing its third anniversary. Intellectual wisdom has often painted the BJP in the most unflattering of colours and charged it of pursuing a policy of “Marxism plus cow.” Reading the Conservative manifesto, I can only say with a measure of amusement that Modi has been there before. People often seek foreign certification before proclaiming ideas to be ‘respectable’. Now British conservatism has provided it.

The author is a senior journalist and Member of Parliament, being a Presidential Nominee to the Rajya Sabha