Who is a true conviction politician? Shamit Ghosh argues they are the ones who are willing to stand up to their party and electorate for what they believe is to be right and are not afraid to lose their jobs over it. Blair was one so is Cameron.
Truly conviction politicians are rare. To make a difference in society and improving quality of life for society at large -- you need to have convictions. There is no alternative. But, over the years, the concept of conviction politician has come to being staying true to your “tribal” colours and policy tools to ensure you dont face the wrath of "traditional media" supporters.
But truly conviction politicians rise above that and adopt policies that they feel are right for pursuing their ideals of where a particular society or country should be. You may not always agree with them. When convinced they usually pursue those policies even unpopular ones if they believe it is right and they put their jobs on the line time and time again. They usually have the moral courage to stand up to their party and electorate and say things have to change and as long as they hold those positions they will do what they have been elected to do. If you don’t like it throw us out – is usually the message and they firmly believe they would win the argument with the electorate. There have been some great examples in the past few decades in Western democracies.
Ronald Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher were the two prime examples in the 80’s of conviction politicians. But they did neglect society and their firm belief in market economy was misplaced especially if you did not have the ability, luck or opportunity to succeed without a safety net. And, by the end of their terms the debate between right and left was at the extremes. Politics was an either or business.
Then came the Clinton phenomenon, refusing to accept that there has to be a choice between economic growth and social justice. Through persuasion, he managed to convince first the Democratic Party activists and then the US electorate. He stood up for his beliefs against a neo-Conservative US congress and won a landslide election when everyone thought he would lose. He raised taxes on the richest Americans, and helped the poor while preaching responsibility and fair share. The result unprecedented economic growth where the rich benefited so did the median incomes of Black and Hispanic households and welfare rolls dropped. He was a product of polls and he was wary of intervening internationally even when in his heart of hearts he knew he should have. In his autobiography he regrets not intervening in Rwanda and he was almost played by Blair and Campbell into putting ground troops in the Balkans.
That moral courage and conviction had to come from a young Prime Minister of the UK. Yes. Tony Blair is probably the most conviction politician that I have seen since I have been actively following politics. Be it Clause IV, or the Balkans, or the Education Bill, or public service reform, or even Iraq, time and time again he put his job on the line and did what he felt was either best for his party or country. Surprisingly the Tory party backed him when they felt it was in the best interest of the country while rebel Labour MPs went on talk shows and called him Ramsay Blair. His loyal deputy John Prescott was always by his side but not many others. Imagine, if the Blair government really worked together what could have been achieved.
But, alas, as it is widely known, there have been many occassions where personal ambitions thwarted the Government's agenda. Is that a sign of conviction politician? A truly conviction politician would have been happy to step down from the cabinet and challenge Blair for the leadership. But without John Prescott's support it would have been impossible and hence they grumbled through backroom leaks or organising coups. Convictions were slain at the altar of ambition for some who are in Cabinet now. Can they truly claim to be "conviction" politicians? They constantly destabilised their own party's government because their chosen one did not have the top job. And when the Government faced crisis they disappeared while briefing the media against the Prime Minister in the background.
Some people talk about the similarities between Paul Martin in Canada and our current Prime Minister. At least Paul Martin, saved the Canadian Pensions systems as well as cut public spending and made them one of the best managed economies of the then G7 community. More importantly, he had the guts to challenge Jean Chretien for the top job as the Liberal party leader.
What do we have? Our pension is in crisis, our economy is going south and post Blair, our influence internationally is waning. Isnt it amazing, when so many other countries are electing "heirs to Blair" such as Harper in Canada, Sarkozy in France -- we force a successful Prime Minister out of office through a 10 year long coup not for Britain's interest but for the interest of incompetent ministers to be promoted to the Privy Council. Remember, the Home Information Pack fiasco, the Minister concerned got promoted and her Boss relegated to run the Department of Transport. Yeah, nice bunch of conviction politicians.
Some of those qualities of a conviction politician such as being able to stand up to party elders, of trying to move your party to a different direction and lead personally from the front without any support from the media makes Cameron a conviction politician. Thats also what got him elected. He was the rank outsider, who had a message, which was not supposed to be liked by his party, but they did. He has put his job on the line for what he believes in already and while the labour party might call him a chameleon – but I don’t think he has changed his views on issues. He is forcing his party to change its views and he did not get to the top by getting rid of an elected leader through a putsch but by winning an election as an underdog. I am also impressed by the way he backed his Shadow cabinet member Sayeeda Warsi on the BNP issue – and I am British Asian. Some people do feel their voices are not being heard and that’s why they support BNP. That’s the truth no matter how you wish to portray it.
Cameron may or may not win a general election but trying to imply he is not a conviction politician is simply not true. He has got more convictions and faith in his ability to persuade people than most others in politics. Those who claim to have the mantle of conviction must do so by their actions and not by words.
Unfortunately, majority of the politicians in the three main parties do not reflect convictions and in this week's PMQ's the behaviour of both parties back benches were apalling. We need more conviction politicians who can stand up to the media, party and electorate for what they believe in.
