The impressive Nigel Farage

As the mainstream parties are licking their wounds after bruising local election results in England, the leader of UKIP, the ubiquitous Nigel Farage is enjoying the limelight of the media. And this is even before the results of the European elections are made public on Sunday, a set of results that are bound to make Labour, Conservatives and LibDems look like medium sized parties.

Enjoying the media frenzy - Nigel Farage

So, what is the appeal of Farage? Although disentangling the motivations of voters at elections can be a tricky business, Farage has already offered a clue. It's the language. And I think he is largely correct.

Let's first of all look at his policies (and yes, they are 'his policies' since the party is more or less a one man show). These policies range from the hard right (shut the doors to all immigrants) to the hard left (milk and honey for everyone, whilst cutting public expenditure). The fascinating thing about Farage's policies is however that there are very few indeed. Farage has been immensely talented at selling soundbites as policies.

Take immigration. Well, governments of all colour have tried to reduce immigration with little effect. Even if Farage would be residing in Number 10 tomorrow, he would still need to go through a referendum on exiting Europe, since it is Britain's membership of Europe that produces most of Britain's immigrants. He may or may not win such a referendum. The fact is, he wont be in Number 10 any time soon. So he has no way of delivering this 'policy'.

But there is also light at the end of the tunnel for the established political parties. I have argued before that it is exactly the insignificance of local and European elections that allow voters to vote UKIP without any consequences. Europe and immigration are important themes, yet neither of them are high up on the list of priorities for decision making of voters in national elections, as Michael Howard and William Hague discovered when they ran 'anti-immigration' campaigns in 2005 and 2001 respectively. Immigration and Europe are the sort of topics that make for heated debates, but not for solid votes at general elections.

So, Labour and Conservatives can take comfort from the fact that the local and European elections this week probably marked the high point for UKIP. Farage may be able to translate his newly gained council representation into one or two seats at Westminster, yet the most damage UKIP will do at the general elections in 2015 is to split the small c conservative vote in some areas. And this is provided the newly elected councillors across England are not falling over each other (as the Greens for example did in Brighton). In essence, UKIP is a movement, rather than a political party, so the loyalty of party members to their party is fairly weak.

So, what about language? This is where the real challenge lies for the mainstream parties. Farage is famous for his straight talk and it is nothing less than painful to listen to Miliband, Clegg and others to try to downplay the UKIP challenge. It is exactly this waffle that gets voters angry. So why do Miliband and others do not speak their mind?

The real reason is that there is nothing they can say about many of the topics that UKIP has broached. Mainstream politicians are very wary of discussing something in public for which they potentially have no answers. The hard truth is that there is no answer for European immigration. Geographical mobility is a cornerstone of the edifice of European Union and there is nothing any politician can do about it, short of leaving Europe.

So, instead of acknowledging this fact and talking openly about it, they waffle their way through and hope no one notices. This Thursday, about a quarter of all voters have just called their bluff.

The West's dilemma with Robert Mugabe

There is little love lost between Robert Mugabe and the West. Most Western governments have condemned the outcome of the recent parliamentary and presidential elections in Zimbabwe, if not outright claimed electoral fraud.

But there have been some voices more recently who have quietly sought to introduce more nuanced narratives into the picture. Some of these have been the pieces in the Guardian by Know Chitiyo and  Blessing-Miles Tendi.

The main dilemma for the West is one of values and principles (as always, you may say). Here is a guy who has nearly singlehandedly ruined the economy of his country through his disastrous land reforms, enriched his family members and cronies along the way, and yet, receives most of the votes of the long suffering Zimbabwean electorate. Democracy in action, but with the wrong outcome.

But if you look more closely, the story adopts different shades of grey, rather than the deep black it assumes in the reports of many Western observers. First, there is Morgan Tsvangirai, who suffered from brutal physical attacks and has shown immense courage since 2008, yet has also made significant miscalculations along the way.

Then, there is the liberation narrative that uniquely favours the incumbent Zanu-PF party and Mugabe, who does not hesitate to exploit it ruthlessly to his and his party's advantage. And last, but not least, there is a large expatriate community, contributing enormously to the economic conditions at home. Zimbabweans now constitute the largest expatriate community of all Africans. This must have a deleterious effect on the strength of the opposition, essentially exporting dissent.

The West struggles to maintain a consistent position in this story. Its insistence on democracy and free and fair elections is simply conceptually too weak to make a difference. A democratic ballot may not yield the results that ensure a free society or a well run economy. So, perhaps there is little the West can do but to insist on compliance with basic human rights and hoping for a better future. This may sound precious little, but it may be better than meddle in Zimbabwean politics.

The lure of anti-politics

If the Italian elections and the Eastleigh by-election have anything in common, then it is the rise of populism. In Eastleigh, UKIP managed to come an astonishing second, beating the Conservative Party into the third place and just narrowly missing to relegatge the LibDems to runner up. In Italy, Beppo Grillo's Movement 5 received about a quarter of all votes cast and became the biggest single group in the lower house of parliament.

So, what's so attractive to voters about UKIP and the Moviemento 5?

UKIP of course has been around for a long time and, after an inglorious start in the end 1990s, smoothed its message to appeal to more moderate voters. The essential argument they put forward however has always been the same: get out of the European Union in order to re-gain control over our borders.

There can be no doubt that uncontrolled immigration can be a serious problem to any country that has to cope with a large influx of immigrants in a very short period of time. Local authorities in the South East of England faced unprecedented challenges when more than 600,000 European workers arrived on these shores in 2005. Teachers in local schools went from teaching classes with English speaking kids to classes with predominately Polish speaking children, sometimes within a matter of months. This required flexibility of resources that simply was not built into the educational system and caused serious problems for those living here already and the new arrivals.

And UKIP also has a point when it argues that the EU guarantees freedom of movement (and freedom to settle) within all member states. Yet, the scary picture UKIP paints is nevertheless simplistic. Immigration is never just a matter of who controls the borders. It is always a function of the various incentives put out to potential arrivals. They include generous welfare payments (which includes accessibility), free health care and housing for new arrivals. Despite the anti-European Union rhetoric, the British government has enormous leeway to shape these incentives and thereby to influence the number of people coming to the UK.

But the real underlying message of UKIP actually centres on something else, and this is where UKIP finds an ally in Beppo Grillo's movement. It articulates an anti-political message, expressing a widely felt sentiment that all politicians and established parties are either corrupt or incapable of reflecting public opinion. UKIP's party leader Nigel Farage never tires of saying that he is not a politician. But is this true? And what does this argument mean?

As Grillo's movement in Italy is refusing to co-operate with the 'corrupt' political elite, it forgets an age old inconvenient political truth: there is no such thing as an un-political action. Whatever you decide, operating in the political arena means that you take sides and make decisions for or against some group or other in society. Refusing to co-operate with others is a political decision, like it or not.

The second delusion of Grillo and Farage is however more serious. It concerns their disparaging of the 'political class'. They argue that politicians are not representing 'the people'. Yet democracy is always the struggle between competing visions of society, and politicians are charged not with representing 'everybody' but with representing their constituents. The essence of democratic politics is strife and argument, which leads to compromise. Decisions 'untainted' by consensus and compromise can only be had in totalitarian regimes, where some are riding roughshod over the views of others.

In addition, in democratic societies, we made the decision to be represented by our peers, selecting them from our midst to find solutions to problems that concern us all. Thus politicians are also a reflection of ourselves, the good and the bad. The alternative would be to argue for a government 'above the partisan interests of society'. The last time that call was heeded, the world tumbled into mass murder under the guise of 'the common good'.

So, where does this leave UKIP and Grillo? Dismissing the political class as crooks may resonate with our fury at politician's occasional misdemeanours but it fundamentally positions them at the margins of democratic society. Our politicians are as good or bad as we are. When we look at the spectacle of political shouting matches in parliament we see a mirror image of our own souls thrown back at us. Perhaps that's why we like to vote for UKIP and people like Grillo sometimes. We hope that our vote for them demonstrates that we are nothing like conventional politicians when deep inside we know different.

Why the US elections are so dull

'Four more years' the audience chanted, and 'U.S.A.'. In a sense, these chants represent the essence of the national conventions of both political parties who are vying for votes in the upcoming presidential elections in the US. Anyone wondering what the real choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is may be puzzled and confused: no policies were articulated by either of the candidates, no plans for future investment or reforms of the education, health, transport sector. In other words: nil, zero, nada on the policy front.

Obama's greatest asset in the re-election fight - his wife Michelle

Worse however was to come for anyone who sat through the speeches of the candidates' wives. No cringe-making remark was left out, no personal comment to low to be made by the most private defenders of their characters. And while Vice-President Biden roused the faithful in support of Obama, former President Clinton once again showed why he sailed to victory at his re-election bid in 1996. His rhetorical flourishes were polished and well delivered, taking a shine off Obama's delivery which often looked wooden and flat.

But why are national conventions of both parties so deadly boring? Despite the hype in the media, neither of the candidates offered any policies or plans for reform and so much of the media talk is about personalities and character. The main reason for this may lie in the constellation of American politics: a system of checks and balances that often delivers an impotent president and an over-potent Congress with budgetary powers. Legislative proposals are hard to get passed for a president (with or) without a party political majority in Congress, so there is little point in delineating a future policy agenda for any contender to the highest office.

This contrasts considerably with UK politics, where the prime minister commands a majority in the House of Commons. With party political discipline (and a bit of luck to have few mavericks around) his voting majority for legislation in the House is assured, so he can deliver the things he proposed to do during the electoral battle. In fact, there is a singular focus in the public mind and debate of the UK on whether prime ministers and governments have in fact delivered what they have promised in their (admittedly, often vague) manifestos.

This close link between electoral strategy and policy agenda post-election also allows moments where opposition parties can upset the governmental cart. Anyone remembers George Osborne's surprise announcement at the annual party conference to lift the tax threshold for inheritance tax to £250,000? The poll numbers of the Conservatives firmed up instantly.

Of course, much of what parties and prime ministerial candidates promise is never delivered, even in the UK. But the underlying tendency is clear: public debate mainly focuses on policies for legislation and reforms rather than personalities. Despite all the admiration I have for the US, Britain may just have the edge in this matter.

European politics at turning point?

Whoever thinks that the recent defeat of conservative parties in local and presidential elections heralds the ascendancy of the left should pay close attention to the recent state elections in Germany. The received wisdom would expect an increase in votes for the LEFT party (or 'Linksparty') which has roughly similar policies to the Syriza party in Greece.

In fact however German state elections have catapulted an obscure and hardly 'left' party into the political limelight: the Pirate Party, an amalgam of right wing madcaps and computer freaks. The Left Party failed in all recent state elections to gain parliamentary seats, and dropped well below the threshold of 5 percent.

It seems that the most recent elections across Europe dance to a different tune than that cheerfully offered by Miliband and his socialist colleagues: it is incumbents that are being pushed out of office and the anti-establishment parties that garner a considerable protest vote. Politics and governments across Europe may become that much more difficult as voters look for alternatives outside the conventional party political spectrum.

Why Western celebrity status is not enough to be a politician

What do the chess master Gary Kasparov, the boxing world champion Vitaly Klitschko, and the singer Yossou N'Dour have in common? They all have, at one point or another, tried to stand for election in their home country, after many years of living in the Western world, and been touted by Western media as the saviour of their country. The former cricketer Imre Khan has just joined the list, feted by The Observer today as the last hope of a country torn between rampant corruption, a failing political elite and an increasingly radicalised population. 

While the list of those who have lived in the West and re-discovered their roots and their electoral ambitions is long, the list of those who have succeeded in winning public office is short. Yet the love the West has for celebrity figures as saviours of their country continues unabated. This despite any evidence to the contrary that those who have lived in the West and are much appreciated by Western media are either qualified to hold political office in their home countries or that it, if they did, would make any difference. 

So what’s at the heart of the West’s infatuation with these celebrity exile politicians? At the heart of it lies a specific patronising attitude, an arrogance about the West’s values and practices, and an (un-)healthy dose of wishful thinking. Let me explain. 

First up is the view that any person who has lived in the West and enjoyed success here, must habour a deep commitment to Western values. It’s easy for all those potential electoral candidates to reinforce this view, all they have to do is to demonstrate their unflinching opposition to corruption in their countries. 

This is so, since our opinion of developing countries is shot through the prism of rampant corruption. So much so that often entire developmental strategies are said to be held up by corruption, while absence of the same is allegedly tantamount to unhindered development and prosperity. This of course is an enormous simplification of reality. Some countries that have made a fist of things after the war, e.g. Japan and Italy, have retained a staggering amount of corruption in politics and business. 

Yet, this is only half the story. Western observers often seem to think that if only the head of state would be incorruptible, everything else would fall in place. Hence the saviour role of these Western based celebrities in turning around the fortunes of their home countries. But corruption is more complicated than this. It is often a symptom of a lack of transparency that pervades the whole of society and unchecked governance structures. In addition, what goes as corruption in one part of the world, is part of conventional business transactions in another. Unclear tax legislation which can be used by the powers that be to persecute opponents and favour others, may equally contribute to corruption as an social ill woven into the fabric of societies. Changing the head of state may make little difference indeed. 

The upshot of this is that parachuting someone who allegedly symbolises Western values into highest office in a developing country is unlikely to show the desired effect. Not to mention the fact that widespread backing from Western media rarely endears these candidates to the local population. 

But there is an additional aspect of arrogance in the Western position when they back one of these celebrity politicians. It is the widely held belief that developing countries are somehow based on clear choices and options, of which the Western path of development and prosperity is the most obvious for the majority of the population. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that any society in the modern world, developing or not, is highly complex and Western views of governance, democratic politics and regulated markets are often faring fairly low in domestic public discourses. Where they are talked about, they are often cited as synonyms of cultural decadence to be avoided, rather than to be accomplished. 

That is why celebrity politicians rarely succeed in gaining high office in countries from which they have often been absent for decades. And perhaps it’s the better for it. The fact is that success in politics anywhere in the world is a matter of finely balancing social and economic interests. Not to mention the need for a powerful constituency that can prop you up in times of trouble. 

Parachute candidates often lack the knowledge and the skills to negotiate this jungle of interests and influences. Their electoral programmes are often little more than ragbags of slogans and populist demands. In a sense, we in the West wouldn’t give them our vote, why should anybody in Senegal or Ukraine?