Global village remodels politics of left and right
THE political terms “left” and “right” originate from the French Revolution of 1789, when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left.
This horizontal continuum of political ideologies has been with us for more than 200 years. It has been a fairly neat shorthand to distinguish different positions on various policies, and also to place politicians in a ready set of categories.
These ideological dimensions generally referred to the place of citizens, or groups of citizens, in the hierarchy of political values. For more “left” politicians or adherents, the political system is obliged, as a main priority, to promote the freedom and welfare of ordinary people, particularly the poor and the vulnerable. For more “right” politicians, the system should strengthen individualism, markets and inherited institutions.
The Brexit upheaval shows how far we have moved from this conceptual continuum. The leaders of both the Conservative Party and Labour supported the Remain campaign, and key leaders in both parties agitated for the Leave campaign. The two strongest parties arising from this turmoil are the Scottish National Party and the UK Independence Party; they have drawn supporters from the main parties and seem to have moved to centre stage.
Brexit follows two major attempts at large national or supranational governments: the EU, of course, but we should not forget the break-up of the Soviet Union.
The tensions in Ukraine, with an erstwhile Soviet “republic” testing the limits of its real independence against the territorial jealousy of Russia, reflects this uncomfortable geospatial arrangement. And Brexit may also spur the growing detachment of Scotland from the UK.
Almost none of this refers to traditional “right” or “left” ideologies. Political debates are now a conflation of issues of rights and welfare. And this is because politicians and statesmen are no longer playing to the old right-left political game. They are now primarily responding to the issue of the place of the state within the globalised order.
It is well known that globalisation has shrunk the world. It has created a so-called “global village”, and it has led to complex trends such as “glocalisation”, where some socioeconomic patterns take on a global dimension, while at the same time local communities are increasingly asserting their distinctiveness.
An important feature of globalisation is that it is virtually incomprehensible to vast swathes of populations, including educated people. It is clear, for example, that few of the voters in the Brexit referendum had a clear idea of funding flows between the UK and the EU, of decision-making procedures, or of shared institutions that simultaneously constrain and protect British markets. So this is creating a new bifurcation in politics: instead of right and left, we have up and down, or high and low.
These labels have nothing to do with economic wealth or social status; they have everything to do with people’s sense of community. Who do I identify with? Who is “my tribe”? Is it the global village network, or is it my home country? The new clash is between those people, of almost all classes, who are comfortable living in supranational networks, and those who find these networks deeply disturbing.
The spatial metaphor has become vertical instead of horizontal. “My country first” is confronting the “global villagers”. The visceral divide is between those who trust international institutions, networks and guarantees, and those who find these global institutions alarming and offensive to a national consciousness. The Scottish are a curious group: they appear to be nationalistic, and indeed are, but they have a desire to be a member of a serious international club. For them, national and international identities flow effortlessly together. The real nationalists are the English.
This new metaphor also explains the curious case of Donald Trump. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, understands and trusts established national and international institutions. She has a global vision and is intrinsically a global citizen. Donald Trump has a viscerally negative reaction to this. Yes, he is a global corporate player, but this has been on his own terms. He doesn’t know the first thing about international sensitivities, collaboration or identities.
Consequently, Trump will be supported by those Americans (“right” and “left”) who want to retreat behind national walls, while Clinton will have to sell the message that it is alright to engage profoundly with international networks.