The tension between governing and getting into government

There is an inherent tension within all polities - especially democratic ones - between the process of governing, and the process of getting into government. The two are intimately entwined: obviously you cannot govern without getting into government, but there is no point in getting into government if you don't know what your going to do there.

Tony Blair was revolutionary (and I'm aware I've made this point before!), because he was the first modern British politician to fully understand this. His 1997 campaign focused more than any before on getting into government: that is managing public image, appearing electable and using spin and PR to do this. He did also have a broad and serious plan for government: minimum wage, investment in public services, and constitutional reform among other policies. It is rather ironic and a real shame that in power he forgot about this and became wholly about getting into government, but the roots were there. As i've complained before, this is the attitude which has pervaded politics today, and I believe is massively responsible for alot of the malign within it.

This tension is an interesting analytical device for understanding the divisions between political parties here in the UK. If you view it on a left/right spectrum, with left being a concern for governing and right representing an emphasis on getting into government, both Labour and the Tories are firmly to the right. My own party, the Liberal Democrats, are a distance to the left and this has in fact been a problem of ours. One of the reasons we have not been as succesful as other parties since for 20years is to a great extent because of our inability to promote ourselves and our ideas effectively. I in fact welcome our move to the right on this spectrum because it's obviously a vital ingredient to success in the current political environment, though I'm pleased we still have a much greater emphasis on policy and what we would do in government than the other main parties.

Of the smaller parties, the Green's are undoubtably to the left of us. I was talking with a Green party member and local activist recently and this, for him, is the key divider between us and them. The party definetely retains a stronger ideological influence and commitment to campaigning on this basis, not through the modern 'dark arts' of electioneering. They are considerably more focused on governing than getting into government, although this doesn't mean their plan for government is any good. Indeed this 'left-wing' position does work against them, and like the LibDems in the past is probably a key reason why they are a marginal party. I expect that as they become more succesful, and get closer to the heart of power, they will become noticably more right-wing and corrupted by the need to get into government. It's a process that's difficult to avoid.

It could well be said this makes the Green's more honest than the big three parties. However, it could also be said that it makes them more stupid. I probably wouldn't quite agree with either statement, but both contain some truth. Blair taught us how getting into government was an important concern as well, and though he went too far we cannot dis-regard his message. The LibDems have done this to their detriment. An extent of electioneering is important, and I think the modern party has the right balance. Occasionally, you need to (for want of a better word) cheat to win, and thats excusable as long as you have significant things you want to do when you win. Its ends-and-means time again, but means must still have an end.

My Green party associate judged the LibDems to be too right-wing; to be too close to the corrupting centre of power to be able to represent him. He expressed his opinion that even they are too close, but far enough for him to be comfortable. I think we are probably just about far enough away while still having some power, and that's why I joined them. I leave it up to the reader to decide what level of corruption they are comfortable with.