The Libertarian Vote

There has been much talk about the upcoming election, it's supposed to be 'the most interesting' in a very long time indeed. In light of all this excitement, it's perhaps fitting that we in the Libertarian movement indulge in some psephological acrobatics ourselves, and thanks to polling organisations this is possible. I have attempted to assess what may be described as the potential 'Libertarian vote'.  If there were to be a Libertarian party, how much support might it perhaps receive, and from where? Here are my observations. 

Before I begin, I should probably say a few words about my methodology. I have relied on a sample of around 100 constituencies across England because I couldn't possibly assess all them  on my own, this would have been prohibitively time-consuming. To calculate a constituency's receptiveness to Libertarian values, I have mostly relied on YouGov's 'election centre'. I have taken into account the 'role of the state' ( the less the better) and measured it against the 'Libertarianness' (the more the better) of the area. It is important to mention here that YouGov almost certainly uses the term Libertarian in a social context, and not an economic or political sense. That much was obvious from trawling through the large number of constituencies I analysed to create this article. There will inevitably be those who disagree with the methods I have used to calculate the 'Libertarianness' of certain areas, and I fully welcome these criticisms. Any steps to improve my calculations can only benefit the movement as a whole. 

Selected Constituencies: 

• Putney
• Hammersmith
• Wimbledon
• Bristol West
• Surrey Heath
• Warwick and Leamington
• Northampton North
• Worcester
• Guildford
• Canterbury
• North Cornwall
• Kingston and Surbiton

So what do these areas have in common? The first thing I will say is that none of these areas are solidly Labour territory, no surprise there then. Even in areas where a Labour victory is likely in Hammersmith and Bristol West, it is set to be a tight race. However, apart from Surrey Heath, Canterbury and Guildford none of these constituencies are particularly safe seats for any party. 

Taken at face value they don't have much in common. Bristol West is quite far to the left  on all issues and Surrey Heath is firmly cemented on the right. However, Bristol West is more liberal regarding the 'size of the state' than other issues such as nationalism and education as well as having a very strong social Libertarian impulse. For this reason, I have decided to include it in my shortlist. In stark contrast, Surrey Heath is very supportive of a smaller state, much more so than other areas in the UK, and has only a 'small' authoritarian streak. So for different reasons, I have decided to include them in my analysis. 

In general, these constituents tend to be young, southern and living in rented accommodation. Only in Surrey Heath and North Cornwall are the majority older homeowners, and this was a small majority. It may also be useful to point out that these are all 'middle England' areas. None are particularly poor or overly affluent. Perhaps putting to bed the idea that Libertarianism is an ideology exclusively for rich bankers and CEO's. Areas where the very wealthy live like Chelsea and Fulham, seem to have more authoritarian impulses. Money woes are a big issue for these potentially Libertarian seats, fitting then, that Libertarian Home held a 'cost of living crisis' seminar last year. 

Another myth we can dispel by looking at polling data is that Libertarians are at home deep in the countryside, far away from civilisation. The constituencies I have selected are either urban areas or, quite densely populated suburbs. The obvious exception being North Cornwall, set to be an ultra-tight Conservative/ Lib Dem contest. Rural areas are likely to be more authoritarian and nationalistic than their urban counterparts. Additionally, the constituencies in the shortlist are generally reliant on online media for the majority of their news, even when TV is the dominant source of news, it is only by a small margin, as is the case in Warwick and Leamington. The reliance on  online news, over television is generally an urban phenomenon for obvious reasons.

However, there are some foreboding signs that emerge from the polling data. For someone that has been brought up in Hull, it is disappointing to note that the Yorkshire cities seem to be particularly hostile to Libertarian values. Places like Leeds, Doncaster, Hull & Rotherham are all solid Labour territory that have quite strong authoritarian leanings. Much more so that other 'working class' cities. Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Birmingham are more generically 'left'. Desiring a bigger state, but have a more socially liberal outlook. Surprisingly for some (and perhaps not for others), areas where UKIP are predicted to do well, are the least socially liberal and are right-wing on all issues including crime and nationalism. If the Libertarian movement wants to gain momentum, it will serve us well to realise that UKIP are not our political allies. UKIP voters also tend to be older and get the majority of their news from the TV. Bucking the trend of my younger, tech-savvy constituents. 

Yet this doesn't mean it will be  easy for a potential Libertarian candidate to win in these areas. Constituencies that are socially liberal as well as wanting to reduce the size of the state are few and far between. The most recent data from IPSOS MORI shows that only 5% of those surveyed, strongly supported the privatisation of public services, compared to 50% who wanted those services to remain in government hands. Not that earning votes is easy for any party, but identifying potential supporters for the Libertarian cause will be of great benefit for the burgeoning movement. I write this as a self-professed Voluntaryist. Someone that doesn't have much faith in state-sanctioned democracy. But engaging with the democratic process, and potentially getting politicians in Westminster that actually care about freedom is in everybody's interest.

TV Election Misery

Last night, the British public was treated to an amazing spectacle! This was a chance for the leaders of all of the parties to have a vigorous debate about their policies and engage with the Great British electorate. Well, kind of…or not at all. In reality, the ‘debate’ didn’t include much arguing over policy. By the time most of you have read this article there will inevitably be a whole range of opinion polls and surveys revealing who ‘won’ this debate but for now I will have to rely on my own judgement. In reality this was simply a platform for a handful of politicians to spell out their policies on various issues, apart from a rogue heckler towards the end, the whole thing looked extremely contrived, But I must admit that I wasn’t expecting anything else.

So far, the election campaign has been dismal. There has been much talk in the build up to GE2015 of how new forces in politics are going to really shake up the British political system. Yet so far the campaigns have been woefully predictable, both the Conservatives and Labour are championing the same issues they were in 2010. But surely a debate that includes the other parties will be more interesting? Sadly this isn’t the case. Arguably the thing that stood out most from last night’s debate was that each politician was clearly trying to appeal their own crowd and little beyond that. Seemingly there will be no one to mercifully break through Britain’s election dullness.

The first question was somewhat predictably about the economy. The striking thing about the first section of this discussion was how close to the Tories Ed Miliband looked. There was a pretty clear split between the parties that accepted austerity and those that didn’t; with Plaid Cymru, The Greens and the SNP backing the latter. It was noticeable how Ed Miliband spent the rest of this section desperately trying to join the other side to get away from David Cameron. Speaking of David Cameron, it has been noted by others that Cameron’s reason for agreeing to this discussion was that he stood a better chance of doing reasonably well in a room full of people as opposed to a one on one debate. Clearly there had been some strong words with the Conservative leader after his grilling by Jeremy Paxman; Dave seemed to be more comfortable than he did last week.

Next the panel was asked a question about the NHS. On this issue, there was a miserable consensus. From this point onwards it was clear that Nicola Sturgeon was going to be the most charismatic person on the panel and Natalie Bennett has so far avoided a meltdown so at least the discussion was bearable to watch. It was fitting that The SNP’s leader led the charge condemning the ‘privatisation’ of the NHS, the other parties followed suit. Essentially the leaders all took turns to accuse the panellists of not being committed enough to the health service. Despite there being an uncomfortable moment when Nigel Farage said that a foreign family that got HIV here in the UK would be simple ‘unfortunate;’ this section was relatively dull.

I will address the last two questions at the same time because they were essentially a continuation of the same discussion, more so that the first half of the debate.  The third question was about immigration and the last was about young people. Really these were just chances for the leaders to address their core vote, no one would be surprised that Nick Clegg sprung into life when tuition fees were brought up and immigration saw Nigel’s most animated moments. I would argue there David Cameron saw his worst instance here when he claimed that by voting for UKIP, people were electing ‘Labour by the backdoor’. I could feel the whole country groaning with me. It was also noticeable that Ed Miliband’s most reliable tactic is his ability to distance himself from New-Labour, I imagine he will continue to deploy this through the election campaign.

To conclude, it was clear by the end of the ‘Leaders Debate’ that Libertarian values will play no part in the upcoming election campaign. Throughout the discussion, there were no references to greater freedom and genuine prosperity at all. But on this issue, I am hardly surprised. I believe that David Cameron’s plan to participate in a little debate as possible during the race to Downing Street has worked remarkably well; I don’t think that his opinion ratings will have been damaged or radically boosted by this debate. As for the minor parties, I don’t think that they will have radically changed their electoral prospects. At the time of writing this article it looks like David Cameron and Ed Miliband have done equally well in Salford. The monotony of the upcoming electoral wrangling hasn’t been made any more thrilling. 

BRICS and Mortar: Building a Movement Fit for the Developing World

The primary concern of this article is how Libertarian theory could ever possibly be applied successfully to what is often referred to as the 'Developing World'. But before I begin, I will make a few remarks. Firstly I fully appreciate the scope and diversity of the 'Developing World', therefore accepting the inadequacies of catch-all terms like the 'Global South', 'Third World' and 'Developing World'. A lifetime could be spent addressing such a massive section of the humanity, and still not be adequately detailed. Not to mention that such broad-brush approaches to the social sciences are completely outside of the contemporary academic tradition. Secondly I will mention that I am by no means an established expert on the issues on which this article addresses, merely a passionate and humble observer. Lastly I will say that far from trying to solve the myriad of issues that most of the countries in the Developing World face, by prescribing some sort of uniquely 'Libertarian solution' this article will aim to be a collection of pertinent inferences and observations about Libertarian discourse and ideas, and how they might relate to countries outside of the 'Western World'. By paying more attention to what's happening outside the remits of our own countries, we can only strengthen our movement, enrich our intellectual discourse and build the foundations of a truly global project.

Fundamentally I believe that Libertarian discourse tends to understate the issues that facing the Developing World. Yet there are good reasons for this, even in the Western World, the Libertarian cause is still a minority issue, albeit a growing one. It seems almost inappropriate for a nascent political movement in the Developed Word to devote time and energy to other countries. As well as being a small group, almost none of the main architects of Libertarian ideas have come from the Developing World and thus have tended to deal with issues immediately concerning the First World. However, I am fully aware that many free-market writers and academics have alluded to (sometimes in depth) to Asia, Africa and Latin America. Yet, these casual references do not come close to the massive amount of literature surrounding the Developing World emanating from mainstream academia or even Marxist literature.

‘BIG-STATISM’

The reasons why we should address the issues faced by the Developing World are self-evident and compelling. Ultimately in terms of how the early 21st century will be looked at by historians and analysts, we are losing the debate. In his book 'How Asia Works', Joe Studwell provides a compelling case that the Asian 'Tiger Economies' owe their success not to free-market liberalism, but to centralised; state-led economic projects, whereby strong and determined governments turn their nations into exporting superpowers. Despite Libertarians having a voice on many issues in the Western World, globally speaking we are going through a period of 'Big-Statism'. The so-called BRICS are all large countries that command massive quantities of internal resources: land, population, mineral wealth and energy. Despite the fact that the future of the BRICS is far from certain, it remains true that their pre-eminence among the developing countries is perceived as having little to do with free-market ideas. On the contrary, it would appear that these select nations owe their position to their lack of reliance on 'free-trade' and ability to develop their domestic economies. Furthermore, not only do we see the rise of big nations, but smaller nations are increasingly clumping together: ASEAN, The African Union, Mercosur, ALBA etc. show that any dreams of the world turning into a patchwork quilt of small independent entities is just that...a dream. Hayek would be horrified. Importantly 'Big-Statism' is a trend that extends beyond the territorial definitions of a nation. The role of the state in the BRICS countries is significant. The nature of the government in China needs no elaboration, yet even in Brazil and Russia almost all of the largest companies are at least in part, state-owned. Additionally, even in supposedly Capitalist India, large swathes of the country are governed at a regional level by Marxist local authorities.

Clearly, as well as nations strengthening their internal institutions, tightening their grip on the lives of their economies, we also live in an era of international tension. In his seminal work on geopolitics, Paul Kennedy wrote as early 1989:

‘There are smaller yet still more significant arms races- not to mention wars- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and across Asia, from Iran to Korea. The consequence has been an explosion in Third World military expenditures, even by the poorest regimes, and large-scale increases in arms sales and transfers in those countries.’ Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of The Great Powers

This quote seems as appropriate now (perhaps more so) than it did when it was written. Consequently, geopolitically speaking, the Developing World has never been more militarised. Therefore, the challenge this poses to the Libertarian movement is that such a context of tension isn't conducive to dissolving national boundaries and deregulating economies. This is a massive topic that I can only really allude to here, but I think the stark realities (however unfortunate) of global geopolitics are something that deserve to be considered.

How valid the claim is that the Developing World is growing prosperous thanks to protectionist policies is debatable. The BRICS economies are complex and experts are far from agreement on whether or not they will pass the precipice into the Developed World anytime soon. The same can be said of 'Big-Statism', what specific policies really would ensure the best road to development is beyond the scope of this article (or its author). Yet if history is to be any guide,  It would suggest that strong and centralised governments can be moderately successful, but rarely build the foundations for a truly robust and prosperous society.

LINGUISTIC

The second main difficulty the Libertarian movement faces when concerning the Developing World is linguistic. The world 'Capitalism' is universally controversial, particularly when people begin to attribute characteristics or a certain 'nature' to it. Either rightly or wrongly, for most of the world’s population outside of the West, Capitalism is synonymous with violence and oppression. And perhaps rightly so, a brief look at the history of most of Latin America, Africa or Asia reveals countless atrocities unleashed in the name of 'Capitalism' and 'Westernisation'. Importantly, often the policies that Developing World leaders implement are far removed from the Libertarian conception of Capitalism and truly free markets. Furthermore, as is the case in Pinochet's Chile or Zia Ul Haq's Pakistan, the most supposedly 'Capitalistic ' rulers tend to be awfully bloodthirsty. Therefore, it is evident that the word Capitalism is ambiguous when concerning the Developing World. I would argue that the Libertarian movement has been guilty of throwing its support behind morally bankrupt regimes only because they have labelled themselves as Capitalists. I believe that by taking more notice of the Developing World might help free-market activists avoid errors such as these.

Yet I believe that there is no reason that this should be the case. Essentially the political history of the Developing World is a scrap yard, littered with the rustic relics of failed collectivist experiments. Weather in Nasser's Egypt, Suharto's Indonesia and (on the extreme end of the scale) Mao's China; a significant proportion of the world’s nations have suffered horrendously at the hands of irresponsible and violent strongmen, spurred on by deluded Leninist fantasies. Clearly, Collectivism has left as much a mark on the developing world as what is called 'Capitalism' has ever done. This important ideological quandary brings me on to another, perhaps more salient issue.

This is the popular assertion that somehow so-called 'western' ideas are fundamentally unsuitable for the Developing World. On a certain level, this is true, but it is mostly false. If the ideas of freedom and prosperity continue to be referred to as uniquely 'Western values' then indeed they will probably be seen (quite rightly) as fitting into a long history of European and American imposition on Non-Western societies. However; on another level this binary separation of 'Western' and 'Eastern' ideas about social organisation is inadequate.  For example, I believe that when the claim is made that a more individualistic approach to politics is fundamentally unsuited to Chinese society (for example) it is wrong. Even Joe Studwell, who spends most of his book praising authoritarian regimes, admits;

‘On its present trajectory, China is set to be a middle-income per capita, but profoundly institutionally retarded state. At an economic level, this gives leading nations nothing to fear.' Joe Studwell, How Asia Works

Fundamentally, the idea that Liberal modes of social organisation have no place in the Developing World, is an accident of history- often professed by the apologists for anti-democratic ideologues. People from the Asia, Africa or Latin America are not by nature servile, fanatical or immutable.  The global diversity of religions and histories is important to consider, but it shouldn't stop us from engaging confidently with people from around the world.

It's Going To Be A Dismal Election

As the politicians seem to have recovered from their new years eve hangovers and begun an ideological mud slinging match in front of a feverish and restless media circus. Either a senior minister has done something deeply embarrassing, or there is a general election fast approaching. In this case the latter. 

Importantly a brief overview of 2014 would indicate that this general election is really going to be spectacular! It has been mentioned over and over again how senior pollsters simply don't have a clue as to who will win- with Labour and the Tory's stuck in a seemingly endless conflict over a couple of percentage points. It is likely that no party will win an over all majority, with some sort of coalition being the predicted outcome. Nick Clegg (yes he still exists!) is openly stating that voting for the LibDems ensures another coalition.Yet there have been tight elections before, the ascendance of UKIP this year has been staggering, with a massive boost in popularity to about 15% of the electorate and two high profile defections from the dark environs of the Conservative back benches- with probably more to come. It has been discussed ad infinitum how UKIP will drag the Tories to the right, displacing their hard won middle ground supporters. 

Additionally, on the Left there has been impressive gains from the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) winning 3 local government seats last year and are apparently fielding 1000 candidates in GE2015- a modest number, but impressive considering the party only formed in 2010. As well as a media furore surrounding the exclusion of the Green Party from any of the official TV debates this year. Add into the mix, a barely defeated SNP whose support has reportedly increased since the referendum in November and surely we are in for an interesting election this year!

Well sadly, the answer is no...as far as i'm concerned anyway. Unfortunately what we have witnessed over the past week is a signal that GE2015 is going to be a traditional back to basics election. The battle lines are already drawn, Labour supposedly championing the NHS and 'hard working families' and the Tories pretending to know what they are doing about the economy. 

A recent article in The Guardian by Andrew Rawnsley entitled 'There's a vacuum now in British politics. And it's Blair-shaped' I believe, is rather accurate. Although I generally don't agree with much of what Rawnsley says in his article, I do acknowledge  his assertion that ultimately politicians will be inclined to go for an elusive middle ground in order to get elected with a respectable  result. As opposed to appealing to their party's vocal fringes. Evidently this is going to be a massive anti-climax for many. Listening to Ed Milliband's election speech  was as dull as dishwater; enough to make me forget that he was ever branded as 'Red Ed'- a dangerous revolutionary firebrand. Frankly my kitchen sink has more proletarian zeal than the current Labour leader. Arguably the dreary soundbites and lackluster applause was a cynical appeal to what Ed Milliband calls the 'squeezed middle'. Virtually no policy was mentioned in the speech.

But what about the Conservatives? I assumed that with the threat of Nigel Farage's purple clad acolytes would be enough to put the brakes on 'Compassionate Conservatism'?Yet it would appear that the Tories are going back to basics as well focusing on the economy. Not wholly surprising given that after rounds of police force cuts, they can hardly play the law & order card. Furthermore, media hype aside, there is no certainty around how UKIP will perform in GE2015. David Cameron's delightfully ambiguous 'road to nowhere' is essentially a promise for more of the same from the Conservatives. This wouldn't be such a problem if the Tories weren't so hopelessly divided, don't ask David Cameron where his 'road to nowhere' is going because I'm not sure he knows himself.  

In conclusion; despite Nick Robinson's assertion that new economic data means that GE2015 will actually be very exiting, my prediction is that the journey towards May will be a predictable ideological trudge with both parties abandoning their fringes to win over a divided middle ground. Not that I would ever have considered voting for any of them, but it would be nice to watch an interesting debate. It's going to be a dismal election... 

Life in the Echo Chamber

You folks will have to excuse me if this article sounds like a rant, and I suppose it is. But please bear with me. This is a criticism directed at the online community. Namely the online 'echo-chamber' that many of us live in. This loosely refers to the process by which the sheer mass of material available on the internet allows us to be highly selective in the information we consume.  Therefore forming tacit online comfort zones. It is the nature of the enthusiasts of the 'internet reformation' to stress the use of the web as an open forum for ideas. Evidently this is true, there is more information online at this moment in time than any one person could consume in a life time. However this easy access to information is having a pernicious effect on our political discourse. 

        For example i'm sure that anybody reading this article will not need to be reminded that the comments section on a YouTube video are not likely to be a place of intense philosophical enlightenment. It stands to reason that we shouldn't expect every comment or blog post to be a revelation, nor do I advocate any sort of quality control over the internet. However I can't help be slightly disheartened when I see people who I presume to be adults descend into vicious grandstanding rather than intelligent discussion.

Ultimately the reason I'm writing this article is because certain sections of what are supposed to my own ideological community seem so hopelessly inept at arguing the case for freedom. I believe this is a fact that can be directly attributed to the 'echo-chamber'. Arguably when an someone gets the lions share of their news from the same source, they are inevitably going to have weak arguments for their positions. It can be assumed that when an individual doesn't challenge their own assumptions their arguments are likely to be less than convincing. This trend isn't restricted to the freedom movement but extends around the ideological spectrum and into the political mainstream. Weather it's one newspaper, one news website or a similar group of digital sources being in an environment where everybody agrees with you or reinforces your opinion means those individuals are going to struggle when their positions are brought into dispute.

Though some may suggest that because they know they are right in there opinions, there is no need to call them into question. I can understand this view, why traipse through a deep metaphysical swamp simply to arrive at the same conclusion you reached before you entered? Any cursory assessment of online activism reveals the reason. Unconvincing arguments,exhausted themes and appalling syntax are some symptoms of the echo-chamber.  I often read an article or book and end up slightly disheartened by it's lack of any discernible  insight. It is often striking to me how easy an article or book could be improved if the author had spent more time entertain opinions that run counter to their argument. 

       Yet perhaps this is just me being picky and anyway, why should anyone feel compelled to conduct themselves like an eighteenth century philosopher online? In reality I would argue that simply taking a step out of our comport zone every once in a while would suffice to broaden our perspective. As for established academics of all political stripes, they must surely be aware of the drivel that exists out there in cyberspace and owe it to their profession not to contribute to it. 

'Evo Once Again'!

Bolivia's president Evo Morales won his third term in office, having one of the highest approval ratings of any world leader. Far from being an isolated case, the mass appeal of Mr. Morales is symbolic of a left wing consensus across most of South America. Otherwise known as the 'Pink Tide'. The importance of this continental shift towards the left cannot be denied. Here in 'The West' socialism has ceased to be a feature of our vernacular when discussing everyday politics. A dream of  a bygone age, only to be seen in the crumbling relics of our civil institutions and read about in the pages of left wing academics. It is worth mentioning here that the most striking feature of mass political unrest across Europe since 2008 has been the lack of any discernible Marxist vanguard. Instead most disgruntled Europeans (including us in the UK) are turning towards popular nationalism. Even the way we talk about politics has changed, the traditional left/ right paradigm is
collapsing under the weight of its own inadequacy.

The lands between the Rio Grande and the Tierra Del Fuego have traditionally been the stronghold of Marxist academics. Perhaps unlike any other place on earth, South America's historical narrative has been shaped to emulate an arena for a bitter class war. Latin America's history has been perceived as ripe and ready for the journey towards Utopia. If the Revolution is to have a vanguard, they speaks Spanish. After over half a century of communist rule Cuba remains a defiant bastion of collectivism. Despite mass protests, a skydiving economy and the death of its cherished leader Venezuelans under Nicolas Maduro show no signs of discarding the United Socialist Party  just yet. And in Brazil's recent presidential elections the three main candidates where Social Democrats. Latin America's most famous liberalising programme was initiated under the iron fist of general Pinochet with the help of his hated 'Chicago Boys'. So the election in Bolivia is surely another nail in the coffin for Capitalism in South America. It is this claim that I will be addressing here.

The Election

On Sunday Evo Morales won 60% of his countries vote, a landslide. His nearest opponent Samuel Doria Medina a wealthy entrepreneur received a disappointing 25%. It goes without saying that compared to British standards where leaders struggle to achieve an approval rating higher than 30%, Mr Morales' popularity in his country of 10 millions is astronomic. Ravaged  by decades of neo-liberal authoritarianism Bolivia's first Aymara president has brought about a much appreciated sense of stability to one of Latin Americas poorest countries.

Historically Bolivia has been a divided country with its traditional  economic center being in the western lowlands ( the Medialuna). However Morales' popularity originates from his supporters from Bolivia's indigenous communities in the Andes, poor labourers in Santa Cruz department and La Paz. Clearly Morales' ability to coordinate these often ignored and repressed groups in Bolivian society has been the key to his success. Yet Morales' presidency hasn't been without opposition. In 2007 ex-president Reyes Villa attempted to resist Movement  for Socialism's (MAS) plans to redesign Bolivia's constitution and sparked disgust and rioting from MAS supporters when he and his allies tried to hamper Morales' government. Reyes Villa has since fled the country.

However his 60% landslide wasn't the victory Morales was hoping for. His supporters were eager for the ex coca leaf grower to run for a third term in office at the next election, something that is prohibited under the Bolivian constitution. Unfortunately for the president he failed  to receive the 66% of the vote needed to make an amendment to this existing law. Perhaps slightly disapointing for the hugely popular president. Although the election result and Morales' reaction to it speaks volumes about the reson behind his appeal. Ultimately it is the stability that he has brought to a vehemently divided country that makes him so popular. Morales' fiery anti-western rhetoric has predictably won him the title of 'despot' amongst western leaders. Yet the fact that in a country ( indeed a region) with a long history of dictatorship he simply accepts this election result and prepares to move on speaks volumes about why he is so universally popular in Bolivia. It is this sober, cautious dynamic about Bolivia's revolution that we proceed to assess.

Socialism in the Twenty First Century?

Undoubtedly it is Morales' confidently anti-capitalist oratory that wins him a place at the seething heart of Latin America's Pink Tide. Morales has spoken before about how capitalism has destroyed Pachamama ( the earth). Indeed to many observers Bolivia's newly re-distributive economic system will raise this impoverished nation into the ranks of the 'first world' in a matter of decades. And the statistics seem to bore this out. Since MAS ascended into power in 2006 Bolivia has undergone an economic boom. With 5% GDP growth annually, a 10% decrease in the number of people living in poverty and a domestic consumer boom with supermarket sales increasing 529% and Restaurant sales increasing 686%. This economic boom has led to a massive investment in infrastructure in Bolivia.

Arguably this is evidence that Bolivia's leftist government is finally ridding the country of the poverty that has plagued its history. However the reality of Bolivia's economic miricle is more sobering. Morales' resource nationalisation programme of oil and natural gas is largely responsible for Bolivias recent success. Its no coincidence that MAS' successful wealth distribution programme coincides with a corresponding rise in the price of oil worldwide. Similarly the stubbornly high price of natural gas seems to be helping to fill Bolivias coffers. Furthermore under the stewardship of finance minister Luis Arce natural gas and oil have increased from 10% of Bolivia's economy to over a third, additionaly one of MAS' most notable moves has been to enable Bolivian government bonds to be sold abroad for the first time in just under a century.

Clearly underneath the revolutionary edifice lies a calculated and relatively mundane economic formula. Gonzalo Chavez, a Bolivian economist has criticised Arce's policy, claiming that Bolivia's success relies too heavily on primary resource extraction. He says that the country is at serious risk if there is a shift in global commodity prices. Undoubtedly it is fortunate for Morales that oil and gas prices are high. However according to the World Bank, Bolivia's unusually high growth rate is set to slow down dramatically over the next five years

One of the most striking features of the Sunday election was Morales' triumph over traditional opponents in the rich lowlands of the Medialuna. Including the large agribusiness state of Santa Cruz. Corporate leaders have praised Morales' policies for keeping the economy stable; in stark contrast to other socialist run countries in Latin America. Morales even received a fairly positive write up in the Wall Street Journal. Although Morales' new friends have left some of his traditional supporters with a bitter taste in their mouths. Indigenous environmentalists, a core part of MAS' support network have denounced  plans to construct a highway through unspoiled nature reserves. Furthermore, a big part of MAS' appeal is their implicit promise not to nationalise any more industries. However in the immediate future it looks likely that Morales' supporters will encourage their idol to go beyond oil and gas.

'America No More'!

Ultimately the reality of Morales' Bolivia is a more somber mix of cool headed nationalisation and redistribution policies; a far cry from revolution. Certainly not 'proof that Socialism doesn't damage economies' as was argued by Ellie Mae O'Hagen in The Guardian this week. Yet it would also be wrong to condemn Morales' regime as adamantly as some media outlets have done. The Financial press have been keen to characterise Bolivia as riding a commodities boom that is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. A scathing analysis indeed.

A natural gas operation in Bolivia

However Bolivia's latest election has proven that for many in Latin America 'capitalism' and 'liberalisation' are by-words for dictatorship and oppression. In this respect I would agree with them. What many leaders in the western world call capitalism is a monstrously deformed and destructive entity, wholly unworthy of the name. The lasting legacy of Evo Morales will be his legacy to Bolivian politics, not its economy. It doesn't look like Morales' regime is going to collapse anytime soon, Hugo Chavez's sudden succession by Nicolas Maduro has shown that Pink Tide governments can be extremely resilient to implosion. Evo Morales' successor will inherit a relatively stable country that has made strides towards being a more socially liberal society. Additionally Bolivia's new found confidence has won it friends in Moscow and Beijing. Arguably a significant reason for the emergence of the Pink Tide throughout Latin America is the regions genuine exhaustion with being dominated by the USA, opposing western imperialism is clearly a vote winner in Bolivia. In 2000 a  handful of western backed companies tried to take over Bolivia's water supply causing what many call 'the water war'. It is no coincidence that the mainstay of Morales' programme is his nationalisation policy.

Therefore Bolivia's latest elections prove that sometimes when addressing issues in far away countries we often have the debate we want to have as opposed to the discussion we ought to have. It is wrong to assume that Bolivia is showing the world that 'Socialism works' in much the same way as politicos are ready to condemn Morales as a tyrant in waiting. Until we learn to examine the reality of the developing world the extraneous ideological quarrels will continue. 

A Pessimists Take on the Scottish Referendum

A recent article in The Economist highlighted that two Britains are emerging one cosmopolitan the other communal. The Scottish cry for independence is the loudest communal voice in Britain right now. Politicos are predicting that the SNP are the beginning of a Communal revolution. I take a less optimistic view on the vote.

“As ever, political tectonics are following socioeconomic ones. Just as England is splitting along lines perpendicular to its traditional divisions, so its two main political parties are tearing along their middles. Mr Parris’s column and the reaction to it neatly depict the debate within the Conservative Party. A very similar conflict is playing out in Labour ranks, too. In both, communitarians have come to blows with cosmopolitans.

The communitarian argument, as the responses to Mr Parris indicate, starts with the claim that Britain’s political disillusionment stems from the haughtiness of liberal metropolitan elites. In particular those of this outlook cite immigration and the EU, but other bugbears like MPs’ expenses, big business and purported NHS privatisation also play a role. London-bashing often features, too. Thomas Friedman, a New York Times writer, describes the political expression of such concerns as “the olive tree”—the outlook that most venerates that which is rooted and has existed for generations.

The cosmopolitan argument, by contrast, takes London as its starting point. In this philosophy, the capital’s success lies in its liberal-minded embrace of open markets, immigration and globalisation in general. Though the London-bashing communitarians are reluctant to admit it, successful English towns and cities beyond the M25 exhibit the same characteristics. Milton Keynes and Swindon, for example, are similarly pro-development. Manchester shares the capital’s knack for integrating a single urban economic area. Leeds has a pro-finance creed that has served it well. Coventry has made promising steps towards a post-Fordist manufacturing world. As Mr Friedman would put it, these places are embracing the “Lexus”—that which is disruptive and modern.”-The Economist, Clacton Versus Cambridge

The article goes on to conclude that a political party that fully embodies the 'cosmopolitan' principles will dominate Twenty First century politics. Despite being a thought provoking and original article, I would argue the The Economist is wrong in it's conclusion. I would argue that despite being the dominant ideological vision of our time. The neoliberal cosmopolitan vision is being slowly washed away by a tide of popular nationalism.

           The Scottish vote will soon be upon us, at the time I am writing this article the verdict is far from certain. As is to be expected political commentators are already forecasting the wide ranging implications of this important event. Whatever path the Scots decide, the result will be monumental for the future of British political life. However in my opinion the enormous fun of futurology must make way for the undoubtedly somber reality of British political life.

There has been talk already of a 'secessionist revolution'. A notion that in the wake of an SNP victory aspiring states across Europe and perhaps further afield will clamor for their own independence referendums. Even in the event that Alex Salmond is defeated there will be a significant constitutional shift in the UK towards 'Devo- Max', in such a circumstance it would be difficult to see how even if the no campaign wins it could be considered a complete victory.

       One of the most interesting aspects of the independence campaign Scotland is that it is primarily a 'working class' campaign. Alex Salmond's agenda is decidedly left wing and writers on the left have keen to stress the proletarian credentials of the Scottish cry for independence. Arguably UKIP represents a similar phenomenon albeit the popular appeal of Mr. Farage's throng of supporters lies in much different areas than the SNP.

        So why the pessimism? Surely the success of the Nationalists in Scotland and the disquiet UKIP caused in the local council elections shows that the winds of change are blowing through Britain. Ultimately there is little doubt in my mind that the status quo will remain. It would seem that among pro-independence supporters in Scotland one of their main gripes with the union is that England is dragging the rest of the UK down a neoliberal cosmopolitan path against their will. A point I happen to sympathize with. Yet if Scotland decides to secede from the British Union little will change for both countries.The political energy in Scotland and the rest of Britain is directed into the existing political system representing an internal quarrel rather than a revolution.  Arguably the nationalist convulsion that is pulsating through Britain is unlikely to have a lasting impact.

It is this introversion that will ultimately exasperate the currents of change in Britain. Much of the vitality of these civic visions, nationalist or internationalist is directed towards the political center. History shows that the main political parties in the UK are usually able to absorb discontent with relative ease. By lurching the Tory party to the right, Margret Thatcher killed of the National Front which had around 20,000 members in the mid-Seventies. For the popular Nationalists and the cosmopolitan romanticists, their vision is ultimately the same. State power is the same weather in the guise of glistening public works projects with distant completion dates or in the footsteps of hundreds of blue clad campaigners with 'yes' plastered across their chests.

       The current  mire that the Labor and Tory party find themselves in will be temporary. With the full weight of the mass media and a hopelessly exclusive voting system the dominant party's seat on the Westminster throne will be difficult to unseat. However I would also argue that for all of those invested in mainstream politics the contemporary mistrust of the establishment won't improve much anytime soon. For this reason the effects of the Scottish vote and other communitarian movements will be limited. But it will be a similarly dismal outlook for the cosmopolite vanguard.