The recent reversal in the electoral fortunes of the centre-left may be cause for some celebration. The Swedish and German elections have put an end to talk about the demise of social democracy in Europe. Sweden s mid-September election saw the Social Democrats maintain their share of the votes at around 36 percent. Göran Persson has since successfully formed a government, despite the Social Democrats teething troubles in their relationship with the Greens and the more extreme left in the days following the election. On the evening of Sunday 22nd September in Germany, the premature acceptance speech of centre-right leader Edmund Stoiber preceded a dramatic final comeback from the SPD, allowing Schroeder to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat , as The Guardian put it. The recent collapse of the Austrian government, which included Jörg Haider s nationalist Freedom Party within its ruling coalition, may also provide a further opportunity for the revival of social democracy.
The death-knells that rang in the immediate aftermath of the Dutch and French presidential elections now seem like a distant fit of hysteria. Perhaps they always were. The centre-left had, after all, achieved electoral success earlier this year in the Polish, Czech and Hungarian elections. What, then, explains this summer s concern and the varying fortunes of social democratic parties across the continent? Three primary explanations can be offered: the changing electorate, the dilemmas of incumbency, and campaign weaknesses.
First, while it may always have been premature to predict the demise of social democracy in Europe, it is, nevertheless, clear that the electoral ground has moved under its feet (at least in western Europe). Perhaps the major reason for the electoral defeats of centre-left parties in Europe was their failure to recognise just how far this shift had gone.
In 1997 and 1998, when social democrats and socialists swept to power in France, the UK and Germany, the voters primary concerns were the economy and unemployment. Over the last five years, all the recently defeated centre-left parties had been very successful in these fields. The irony, then, is that voters were less concerned about the economy and unemployment because of these very successes. As these issues slipped down the agenda, a new set of concerns erupted onto the scene: immigration, crime and security.
In both the Dutch and French elections, for example, anti-immigration messages played a prominent role. In the Netherlands, these concerns were exaggerated by the effects of September 11th. Dick Benschop, the former Dutch minister for European affairs, has argued that the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon sent shockwaves through Dutch society as Turkish and Moroccan minorities became Muslim and Muslims were linked to terrorism. While the French National Front leader, Jean Marie Le Pen called for a France for the French , Pim Fortuyn attacked Muslims, claiming the Netherlands is full.
However, it was not just in France and the Netherlands that the anti-immigration message would be used as an electoral strategy. In Sweden, the percentage vote of the Liberal Party tripled to almost twelve percent when its leader, Lars Leijonborg, demanded that immigrants pass a Swedish-language test before being given the right to citizenship. While the Liberals message was aimed at integration they argued that poorly spoken Swedish excluded immigrants from the job market it had the effect of attracting more extreme voters. This was compounded by the lack of any credible populist party in Sweden that routinely manipulated rising fears of immigration, in contrast to Denmark and Norway. However, Sweden also has the highest percentage of immigrants in the region 22 percent of the population were born outside of the country which may explain why this issue was so decisive in France and the Netherlands but not in Sweden. Indeed, the Liberals were about the only party to discuss it.
In essence, this is the crux of the matter. Many of the new issues that voters are concerned with are those that the left and centre-left have traditionally been uncomfortable addressing. While New Labour had sought to be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime , the same formula is just as valid for the continental centre-left. Unfortunately, as Peter Mandelson testifies, it is tempting for the left to sideline crime, lawlessness and anti-social behaviour as political issues that have been manufactured by the right. While it may be that the right manipulates voters concerns in this regard, the answer is not simply to ignore these issues. Indeed, if nothing else, says Mandelson, the last two years should bring home to all of us the gravity of this mistake .
Indeed, the German case shows the value of reacting quickly to the new concerns of the electorate. Shockwaves were sent through German society when it was realised that the September 11th attacks were quite probably planned in Hamburg. But the government was quick to react interior minister Otto Schily prepared two security packages that were passed within a few months. Security was therefore a low issue in the election; Deutsche Welle claimed terrorism fears were a no show .
Second, it is not merely in these new areas that the centre-left must be bold and develop new policies. It should also seek to constantly renew its approach to its core policies such as public services. However, this cannot mean simply defending them, or the status quo. In his speech to the party conference in Blackpool, Tony Blair argued that New Labour is at its best when it is bold and that, with regard to public services, this meant taking the 1945 settlement and reforming it around the needs of the individual as consumer and citizen for the 21st century .
Here, the Dutch election may provide a warning of what lies in store if the government fails to be bold. While the incumbent PvdA were seeking to reform the health service, the fight against waiting lists and budgets was rather tame and poorly defined. After over a decade of electoral and governmental success, it appeared, in Dick Benschop s words, as though the Dutch Social Democrats were unable to challenge either themselves or the country. Naturally, people looked elsewhere. Bold change requires a clear vision and an opposition to the status quo. However, governments often tend to get distracted by targetitis . Incumbency itself appears to be a problem for social democrats at least the extent to which their governments cease to be insurgents, opponents of injustice.
Finally, some centre-left parties have pursued naïve campaigns. While it is true that Lionel Jospin had the most successful economic record of any French leader for thirty years, it does not follow that this record spoke for itself. A theme common to almost all defeated centre-left parties, Philip Gould has argued, is their failure to find a way of owning the economy . What is lacking is a clear message that relates economic policy to tangible improvements in living standards and people s everyday lives. Since the Dutch and French elections, social democrats have shown that they have begun to redress these failings. True, Schroeder s was the narrowest of victories and social democracy is almost a way of life in Sweden. Nevertheless, the picture appears a lot brighter than it did four short months ago.
Two cheers for social democracy, then. One because it has proven capable of learning the lessons of defeat, a second because it has shown the courage to fight back. But two cheers are all it deserves, for the moment. Too many on the left, in Italy for example, are divided. In France, the Socialist Party has yet to become an effective and credible opposition. When these lessons have been learnt, maybe then there will be occasion to give three. weblink: www.policy-network.net