Stephen Vasciannie
TONY BLAIR has prevailed. For the first time in British history, a Labour Prime Minister has won three consecutive general elections. Already, he has indicated some of the priorities of the new administration, and has quickly named his new Cabinet, largely with an eye to continuity. This represents a triumph.
But if you follow the political commentators in Britain, you may well be bewildered. On the night of the election, even as it emerged that Blair would win his unprecedented third term, there was a chorus to the effect that it was "a very bad night for Blair". Some members of the choir on the BBC Television added that it was a good night for the Conservatives, and others suggested that the Liberal Democrats had reason to be pleased.
The analysts went further. One suggested that this was the worst night for a decade for Tony Blair's political fortunes; another noted that the Prime Minister was "chastened", and someone else advanced the view that the election night proceedings signalled the end of Tony Blair's career. It was really only left for Tony Blair to write his resignation letter this was the general sound coming from the choir.
BEWILDERING
Bewildering, I say. The Prime Minister had just won re-election, and yet, the doomsayers could not be controlled. In fairness, the line of argument was that Blair had won with a signficantly reduced majority, and that this marked his decline.
Even if we accept this line of argument, it should be noted that the critics have conflated the terms "decline and fall": the victory margin was reduced, but it was not erased. The reduction should be noted, but it should not become the central point in the analysis; obviously, Blair's victory was the central point.
Why was this rather straightforward point so enthusiastically missed by various BBC commentators and visiting political pundits? Some of the visiting pundits were actually representatives of the defeated parties, so we could reasonably expect them to minimize the significance of Blair's victory.
In any event, the rather disappointing performance of the analysts on election night suggests to me that they simply failed to see the woods from the trees.
IRAQ
From a distance, Tony Blair's victory seems all the more remarkable because his points of vulnerability are so readily apparent. There is the albatross of Iraq. Participation in this war has created many enemies: Blair is caricatured as Bush's poodle, he is said to have been economical with the truth concerning the decision to support Bush, lives continue to be lost even though the search for weapons of mass destruction is abandoned as fruitless, and regime change does not provide a legal justification for war.
Iraq, in other words, provided ample scope for the electorate to turn against Blair and as the case of George Galloway shows, in at least one constituency, the Iraq problem was decisive. "This one is for Iraq, Tony Blair," George Galloway said with much venom as he took a safe Labour seat from Oona King, for the Respect Party.
Other factors worked to weaken the Labour Party. The issue of immigration has been simmering for some time, and it is not clear that the Labour Party has a coherent line for the people to consider. Fortunately for Blair, however, it seems that the hardline Conservative approach that would see significant restriction in immigration, and would see Britain withdrawing from the Refugees Convention, has not found favour with the majority.
Why, then, did Blair win? A part of the answer to this question turns on the issue of alternatives. The Liberal Democrats opposed the Iraq war from the outset, and probably gathered increased support for its position. The Liberal Democrats,
however, suffer from the serious constraints faced by so-called third parties in the Westminster system. Many people are still inclined to the view that a vote for the Lib-Dems is a wasted vote.
The bigger issue is why the electorate did not swing more substantially to the Conservatives. Some of the Conservative positions were meant to appeal to a wide cross-section of the electorate, and Michael Howard was prepared to attack Tony Blair in direct, forthright terms. But it may be that the British people do not want a pitbull at No. 10 Downing Street; and it may be that they believe that the combination of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is still better than Michael Howard standing alone.
Thus, Third-Term Tony is still Prime Minister, and Michael Howard has gone home.
Stephen Vasciannie is a professor at the University of the West Indies and a consultant in the Attorney- General's chambers.
