Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Is 'Euston-ism' the new Left in the U.K.?

Hasan Suroor

The only Left bit of the "Euston Manifesto" is its faintly Left jargon. On the other hand, there is a lot in it that neo-conservatives are more likely to find to their taste.

LONDON'S EUSTON station is an unlikely venue to launch an ideological battle. Spreading democracy and human rights in the Third World is the last thing tired and harassed commuters have on their minds as they fight their way in and out of the station. But, now, thanks to a group of Left-leaning intellectuals "Euston-ism" has suddenly emerged as a new strand of post-Iraq political thought in Britain.

There is a heated debate taking place around the issues raised by the so-called "Eustonians" on the role of the Left in the modern world. They have set out their "vision" in the "Euston Manifesto," so called because it originated from the ideas generated during discussions in a pub near the Euston station in central London. The manifesto will be publicly launched next month, but it is already available on the Internet (www.eustonmanifesto.org) , and a summary has appeared in New Statesman. In the past week, the document has become a subject of intense argument among "bloggers" and in the mainstream media.

But before going any further, it is important to point out that it is not a wholly innocent enterprise — simply a case of concerned intellectuals deciding to offer a "fresh" Left-Liberal perspective on important issues of the day, as its leading lights claim. The only Left bit of the manifesto is its faintly Left jargon. On the other hand, there is a lot in it that neo-conservatives are more likely to find to their taste. One does not need to subscribe to conspiracy theories to be struck by how much Euston-ism has in common with the thinking in the Bush White House and Downing Street.

So, who are these Eustonians? And what do they want? The roots of Euston-ism lie in the divisions within the Left over the invasion of Iraq. It is not perhaps widely known outside Britain that unlike most other countries, including India, where the Left led the opposition to the invasion, a section of the British Left supported it. Many of the leading figures behind the Euston Manifesto are those who endorsed the invasion, though they disagreed with the Bush-Blair justification for it (that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction) and the manner in which it was carried through.

They hold that for all its terrible consequences, the invasion was worth it because it rid Iraq of a "tyrannical" regime; and now that the war is behind us the Left should stop "carping" about it and instead help build "democracy" in that country. More significantly, they argue that the struggle for democracy should not stop with Iraq and that the Left should back pro-democracy movements everywhere as a matter of principle.

But hang on, this is only the dressing for a deeper agenda which is to get the Left to abandon some of its most fundamental beliefs such as respect for national sovereignty, recognition of social and cultural factors that shape a country's political system, and what the Eustonians believe is the Left's "obsession" with anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism.

Let us hear it straight from the horse's mouth — Norman Geras, Professor Emeritus in politics at the University of Manchester, and Nick Cohen, a leading journalist and Observer columnist, both of whom were behind the Euston initiative. Deconstructing their manifesto in an article in New Statesman, they said it was aimed at restoring to the Left "some of the most important values of a progressive politics [that] have lately been lost sight of, subordinated to wrong-headed political priorities and insubstantial tactical considerations."

In nuts-and-bolts terms it meant: "We reject the anti-Americanism which is infecting so much left-liberal thinking ... We argue that the time is long overdue to break with the tradition of Left apologetics for anti-democratic forces and regimes; that there is a duty of respect for the historical truth; and that it is more than ever necessary to affirm that, within the usual constraints against incitement, people must be at liberty to criticise beliefs — including religious beliefs — that others cherish."

They accuse the mainstream Left of "double standards" saying "too many on the Left consider the violations of human rights perpetrated by democracies to be more serious than far worse infractions committed by other countries." The principles of liberal, pluralistic democracy should be applied universally without making "excuses for ... reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy," and "regardless of cultural context."

In the context of Iraq, they argue that while violations of basic human rights by coalition forces must be condemned there is also need to condemn the "gangs of jihadists and Ba'athists thugs of the Iraqi `resistance.'" Many on the Left have not done this, they complain.

In the preamble to the manifesto, the Euston group proposes a "fresh political alignment," which would involve making common cause with "genuine democrats, whether socialist or not."

"We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to their authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values," the preamble says.

The manifesto urges liberal and egalitarian voices to speak up against those "for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic `anti-imperialism' and/or hostility to the current U.S. administration."

"The values and goals which properly make up that agenda — the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression — are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to," it concludes.

Hatchet job for Blair?

Some of the reaction to the Euston initiative has been palpably hostile. It is seen as a "hatchet job" for Prime Minister Tony Blair who has been battling with the Left both within his own party and outside over some of the key issues highlighted by the Euston group. One Left critic described the manifesto as an "apology" for Mr. Blair and other "war-mongers."

"The Euston group's generalised dismissal of the `traditional left,' not to mention its easy espousal of human rights and democracy, rings hollow in a world where these two are being demolished at an alarming rate in the United States and Britain," wrote John Green in a letter to New Statesman.

Another critic dismissed the manifesto as shrill "posturing" by disgruntled intellectuals trying to re-establish their Left credentials.

Even supporters of the manifesto believe that its primary purpose is to attack those on the Left who opposed the Iraq invasion. The Guardian columnist Martin Kettle, who found a "lot to relate" to in the manifesto, described it as "essentially a protest against the perceived obsession, dogmatism and influence of post-Iraq Left politics."

"It may be true, as some claim, that the current splits in the British Left predate the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq, but there is little doubt that the Euston Manifesto would never have been written before September 2000 or even March 2003," he wrote.

Another pro-manifesto commentator, Will Hutton, acknowledged that it is a "rescue" act for Mr. Blair at a time when the Left has completely deserted him.

"In short, a strand on the Left passionate about democracy is coming to Blair's rescue," he said writing in The Observer. While he supported the Euston group's "commitment" to democracy, he said there was a "hole" in its thinking that made it "politically dysfunctional." The "hole" was its attempt to gloss over the "illegitimacy" of the Iraq war by ignoring the very principles of democracy and rule of law that it preached to others.

Without a United Nations mandate, the military intervention was not legal and what Britain and the U.S. were now doing was to build democracy in Iraq from a "fatally flawed position." "The Euston group states the democratic principle, then exempts itself from its application. The U.S. and [the] U.K. had to observe democratic rules and they cannot be excused now," he argued.

There is a history of ruling groups using disgruntled or disillusioned Left intellectuals to attack the Left — and sometime those engaged to do the hatchet job are not even aware that they are being used, as Stephen Spender famously claimed after it turned out that the Left-wing Encounter magazine which he edited was actually funded by a CIA front organisation.

Nearly 700 people, mostly academics, journalists, political activists and bloggers, have already signed the manifesto — and if nothing else it shows that the British Left retains its penchant for a good argument.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Of mail regulation and monopoly
Politics amidst turmoil
Is 'Euston-ism' the new Left in the U.K.?
Maneka to head Energy Globe Jury
Corrections and clarifications
For a world free from chemical weapons
Hero stones
Quotas in education
All is not well
Sri Lankan situation
"There is a fury building up across the country"

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu