Russia’s Real Impact on British Elections

  • Rusia
  • 0
  • 137 Views
  • 13 November 2019

Unbeknownst to most Britons, Russia did, in fact, impact many of the UK’s elections over the course of the twentieth century. Not by physically meddling or favouring one party or candidate over the other. Not even through Soviet propaganda sold in the West. Rather, it was a passive force lurking in the background needing to be acknowledged and dealt with, by one party in particular.
The appearance of the USSR following the October Revolution followed a wave of popularity for socialism across the European continent. At the turn of the century, the general population of Europe was starting to view the nature of the state and its role differently. An increasingly mobile and educated populace expected more social and economic assistance from those in power. They were tired of war and poverty.

In his vastly influential book The Strange Death of Liberal England, George Dangerfield noted how the British Liberal Party had failed to deal with four crises before the Great War. Among two of them, where socialism is concerned, was the suffragette movement and increasingly militant trade unions.

Most women in Britain at the time were working class, and one reason why the Liberals feared giving them the vote was the electoral self-harm it would cause. A new political party had formed, which many trade unions had now become actively involved in. It was a party who promised to represent the needs of the urban working class. They went from 2 seats in 1900, to 29 in 1906 and then up to 42 in 1910. Following the women’s suffrage, this party’s surge was solidified. The Labour Party was now a major force in British politics.

Though its founding roots came from all different directions, it was a socialist party, who, by 1918, were committed to the “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” The British public know this better as “Clause IV”, which was subsequently dropped by Tony Blair.

Yet, Labour was a reformist socialist party, not a revolutionary one. It did not seek to overthrow capitalism or the British state, but improve it from within. The Communist Party was refused association with the Labour Party, even though one of its founders, Keir Hardie, believed the leftist groups had to unite and work together for the overall betterment of society. However, as Morgan Phillips said in the 1950s, “socialism in Britain owed more to Methodism than Marx”.

Post-war Europe now had established socialist parties, both competing for and already in power, in almost every country. The world’s largest country had raised it to state power, and high ranking Labour Party officials took it upon themselves to visit the land who had overthrown and murdered an autocrat, gone through two revolutions, a Civil War and the Red Terror.

As my friend and mentor, Jonathan Davis, has written extensively on this subject maintains, few ideas of how to implement socialist policies came back with Labour’s hierarchy. Yet, the USSR would impact Labour’s political ideology and policy making for decades to come. Its first Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, visited Menshevik Georgia. His government made Britain the first country to formally recognise the USSR. Moreover, the first Labour government was helped brought down by the fraudulent Zinoviev Telegram: the first alleged case of Russian interference in a British election.

Published by the Daily Mail four days before the 1924 General Election, the telegram was alleged to be from Grigory Zinoviev, Moscow’s head of the Communist International. In the letter, Zinoviev spoke of a possible Communist revolution in Great Britain. This, no doubt, aided the Conservatives at a time of rather sensitive relations between Britain and the USSR. A trade agreement was on the table, and Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) was labouring. Historians are divided on the actual impact of the letter, but it cannot be denied that it affected the psychology of the Labour Party, who felt a serious injustice and foul tactics had hurt them electorally.

The hardened attitude of the British public to the USSR continued, and this aided the Conservative Party. For many election campaigns to come, it would associate Labour with Soviet socialism. This is something Labour’s second Prime Minister sought to handle. In 1937, at the time of the Stalin Purges, Clement Attlee publicly rejected the USSR as a suitable model for socialism. As my mentor writes, this confirmed Labour as a social democratic party in practice.

That being said, every Labour manifesto until 1992 contained the word ‘socialism’. By deleting Clause IV from Labour’s doctrine, Blair followed the lead of Spain’s first socialist Prime Minister after the Franco dictatorship, Felipe Gonzalez. In 1982, Gonzalez insisted on erasing “Marxism” from the PSOE’s manifesto, on account that it would hurt their electability. The Communist Party of Spain under the leadership of Santiago Carillo, a self professed Stalinist, performed poorly in elections, despite initial hopes of becoming a major political force. It was a time when tensions between the West and USSR started boiling again, following a short lived period of ‘détente’. Whilst Spain would not join NATO for another five years, the newly established liberal democracy had to confirm its commitment to this ideology, which a Marxist party in government could not.

Pacifism and de-nuclearisation was always an issue within the Labour Party that worked against them during the Cold War. After a meeting between Labour leader Neil Kinnock and US President Ronald Reagan before the 1987 General Election, the White House expressed huge concern over Labour’s position on nuclear weapons. It was an easier sell for Conservatives to be the party of national defense – a card Theresa May recently played against Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed the renewal of trident missiles.

Blair by contrast had to adapt to a post-communist world where socialism was a dirty word, and neo-liberal economics had won the day. He and US President Bill Clinton championed the “third way” between the free-market capitalism of Reagan and Thatcher, and the state-led ideal of the USSR. Although the third way was not an ideology, it was based on a specific set of ideas and ideals, formulated by thinkers like the sociologist Anthony Giddens, who advocated introducing a “different framework” that avoided “the bureaucratic, top-down government favoured by the old left and the aspiration of the right to dismantle government altogether”.

Thirty years after the Berlin Wall fell, we can see a new battleground for alternative visions of the future being laid. There has been a renewed interest in Marxism and Keynesianism. The election of Jacinda Arden in New Zealand, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US and others suggest people have grown tired and weary of neo-liberalism. But where Russia is starting to impact modern British elections is connected to the state of liberal democracy failing to effectively respond to the crisis of 2008.

Cynicism about politicians is widespread across Europe. According to a Pew poll, 63% of Slovaks think most elected officials do not care what they think. In Hungary, it is 71% and in Bulgaria, 78%. The figures in France and Britain are 76% and 70%, respectively. Whilst Europeans are now freer and richer than ever before, inequality is growing. Most Europeans feel a lack of an economic safety net and sense of togetherness that existed in the Cold War era.

Russia’s 1993 constitution established a liberal democratic framework, which Putin’s government still operates within. But the experience of a free-market with no rules and disappointment that capitalism brought it used by the Russian state to advocate for a managed democracy where the ‘wrong’ candidates are not chosen, thus, they cannot disrupt the progress made or undermine any achievements.

But Russia is different to the average European country in this regard. It never had an experience of democracy and had to handle the transition from Communism differently. It could not just explain Communism away as a military occupation. The expectations could not meet the reality; hence, Putin is a champion of pragmatism and gradualism. It is also a government who does not disassociate itself with the USSR, either, yet still condemns its darkest chapters.

As can be seen by Russia’s foreign policy in the former Communist space, it is trying to present itself as an attractive alternative to the West. The Russian state is perceived to favour politicians like Nigel Farage, among other populist leaders in Europe, who might be more friendly to its interests. This, it must be stressed, is Russia’s response to feeling a historical injustice and what it considers to be poor treatment by its Western counterparts.

The average Russian knows little about British politics. Most could not even care less who becomes Prime Minister. Britain does not impact Russian foreign policy making to any real extent, and Labour’s position on Russia is not even known by its own party members. Corbyn has said he would challenge Putin on human rights, but has otherwise not mentioned him publicly.

As an election is less than a month away, the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has refused to release a dossier containing information on Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit Referendum and 2017 General Election. A report came out Friday about huge sums of Russian money funding the Tories just after multi-millionaire MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg said the (mostly working class) victims of the Greenfell Tower fire “lacked common sense”.

Whenever a British election arises, Russia has been something to be treated with caution and suspicion. A country that a leader needs to be prepared to ‘handle properly’. During a TV hustings for the 2015 election, journalist Jeremy Paxman told former Labour leader Ed Miliband “a joke” he had heard “from a bloke on the tube the other day”:

Paxman: Ed Miliband goes into a room with Vladimir Putin and the doors close. They open two minutes later, Vladimir Putin is standing there smiling, and Ed Miliband is on the floor in pieces.

Miliband: Was that David Cameron [who told you that]? 

Paxman: No it wasn’t, but you understand the point, here? People think you’re not tough enough!

Miliband lost the election. Following the annexation of Crimea and ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine, Syria and the West’s inability to solve these crises, Miliband was painted as ‘not the guy’ to solve it or stand up to Britain’s foes. Corbyn is definitely not a ‘tough guy’; he makes jam from plants he grows in his allotment and likes manhole covers.

How Corbyn and Putin would get on if he were to become Prime Minister, remains to be seen. What can be said is that both men see the world very differently. Corbyn is a foreign policy novice and champion of peace. Putin wants to protect Russia’s sphere of influence and be treated as a great power. Corbyn does not have an answer or developed opinion on that. It may work to his detriment over the next few weeks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Russian Researchers on Strategic Communication in Great Britain: Focusing on the Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence and International Psychological Security

  • 0
  • 90 Views
  • 3 December 2019

DSc. Prof. Evgeny Pashentsev, leading researcher at the Institute of Contemporary International Studies of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, director of the International Centre for Social and Political Studies and Consulting (ICSPSC), coordinator of the GlobalSt

citește mai mult

Strategic Communication in EU-Russia Relations . Tensions, Challenges and Opportunities

  • 0
  • 151 Views
  • 20 November 2019

Few days ago the prestigious Palgrave Macmillan publishing house announced the appearance of a new volume dedicated to a very important contemporary topic: the strategic communication between European Union and Russia, analysing tensions, challenges and opportunities on this very important area.

The volume is coordinated by the prestigious professor Evgeny Pashentsev, leading researcher at the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry

citește mai mult

Russia’s Real Impact on British Elections

  • 0
  • 137 Views
  • 13 November 2019

Unbeknownst to most Britons, Russia did, in fact, impact many of the UK's elections over the course of the twentieth century. Not by physically meddling or favouring one party or candidate over the other. Not even through Soviet propaganda sold in the West. Rather, it was a passive force lurking in the background needing to be acknowledged and dealt with, by one party in particular. The appearance of the USSR following the October Revolution followed a wave of po

citește mai mult

Azebaijan, cheia geostrategică a Asiei Centrale

  • 0
  • 1334 Views
  • 13 February 2018

După destrămarea URSS, Azerbaijanul a fost statul ex-sovietic care alături de    republicile Baltice a avut o dezvoltare constantă și durabilă. Desigur, aici pot fi adresate unele critici regimului de la Baku cu privire la democrație, care în opinia multor analiști este doar mimată la Baku. Însă faptul adevărat este că acest stat a reușit să își gestioneze eficient resursele de care dispune pentru a deveni o societate prosperă. I se atribuie Azerbaijanului etichet

citește mai mult

What Can Democrats Learn From Alabama’s Doug Jones?

  • 0
  • 1475 Views
  • 30 November 2017

In ordinary circumstances, Doug Jones would already be preparing to move to Washington DC. The former prosecutor famous for convicting KKK members for a church bombing is up against gay bashing, God and gun lovin’, twice kicked out of elected office, Judge Roy Moore. A man who has eight accusers of sexual assault, all of whom were underage at the time of the allegations.

Yet, if one looks at all the recent polls, they show a ti

citește mai mult

Azerbaidjanul, petrolul și românii

  • 0
  • 1867 Views
  • 7 October 2016

Întotdeauna, statele sunt nevoite să își apere poziția pe marea tablă a geopoliticii, uitându-se cu grijă la vecini, dar și la puterile regionale. Această regulă presupune nu doar poziția ofensivă, ci și valorificare atuurilor, astfel încât să devină piese care contează pe „câmpul de analiză”, iar nu elemente neglijabile, care sunt măturate dintr-o dată de cei ce au suficientă putere să mânuiască piesele.

Caucazul, ca regiune geopolitică, nu face nici ea excepție

citește mai mult

A scandal is brewing between Qatar and the United Arab Emirates

  • 0
  • 430 Views
  • 24 July 2019

The Al Arabiya news agency, citing the New York Times, has published information about Qatar’s involvement in the terrorist attacks in Somalia on objects belonging to the United Arab Emirates.

In particular, the article deals with secret negotiations between Qatari entrepreneur Khalif Kayed al-Muhanadi and Qatar’s ambassador to Somalia, Hassan bin Hamza Hashem. During this conversation, which took place on May 18, 2019 and whos

citește mai mult

Chinese Psychological Warfare in Countering Domestic Challenges

  • 0
  • 952 Views
  • 19 December 2018

Introduction

The People’s Republic of China is considered to be an emerging geopolitical power in the world. Firstly, it has the second-largest economy in term of nominal GDP and its economic power is one of the most influential[1]. Secondly, in addition to the military power – according to GlobalFirepower.com – is the third after the US and Russia; China is becoming also p

citește mai mult

What are Europeans Thinking about Britain?

  • 0
  • 779 Views
  • 14 December 2018

Something that the British deserve some credit for is their lack of care for how other countries perceive them. Rarely does it tickle our curiosity and we are unapologetic about it. If it did bother us, the tourist hotspots of Marbella, Benidorm, Zante, Napa and the like would be unrecognisable today. Historically speaking, few Britons also want reminding of slavery or atrocities in the colonies.

This is down to both an unabash

citește mai mult