In the end, Tony Blair's gamble paid off handsomely. He transformed the Labour Party so as to make it a left of centre one with ideological trappings that would frighten the middle class voters firmly discarded. In the 97 years the Labour Party has existed, it has ruled fewer than 20 years and never for two full terms at a stretch. The Conservative Party, in the meanwhile, has been in power for all but 10 other years "" alone or in coalition. Mr Blair, therefore, sought to clone the Labour Party to make it as much like the winning combination. But he had to do this without losing old Labour supporters. Not an easy task.
He did this by relentlessly reforming the party. When he got elected following the sudden and premature death of John Smith, he could have chosen an easy life. He had a lot of goodwill, a lead in the polls and an almost guaranteed victory. He chose, however, a permanent revolution mode. He took on the challenge of revising the famous Clause Four which committed the Labour Party to take all means of production into public ownership. This was not only unpopular with the electorate but obsolete, though few in the Labour Party wanted to say so openly. Once the Berlin Wall had gone and Mrs Thatcher had triumphantly privatised a lot of the public sector and had won elections doing so, there was no mileage left in persisting with Clause Four.
Mr Blair could have been evasive. He could have redefined public ownership in a softer way; he could have left Clause Four on the books but ignored it in office. He chose, however, not an evasive strategy (as for example in India the political parties adopt on secularism or on liberal economic reform) but boldly tackled the old guard head-on. He asserted that public ownership was no longer a relevant value for late 20th century social democrats. Socialism, he said openly, is passe; what matters is ensuring people's well being in a tough competitive environment. We all had our doubts and differences. But after losing four elections in a row, the party was desperate for power.
Mr Blair has continued his revolution by widening membership and letting members debate and vote on the party manifesto. This was unprecedented. I recall that way back in 1979, after our first defeat, I proposed in my local Labour Party branch that the leader should be elected by all the members. I was laughed out of court with arguments from Left-wing dadas which would not have shamed a white colonialist in India. Members could not be trusted with such an important decision; they did not know the issues. They, the activists alone, could judge what was good for the Party etc. Now, not only is the leader elected by all the members votes, but there is frequent consultation using modern communications media. The old guard sneeringly calls it Bonapartism, but it works.
This was proved on the night on May 1. Labour did not just win. They wiped out the opposition. The majority of 179 is not only the largest for any Labour victory, but is larger than the total number of conservative MPs in Parliament. It is a historic change. Already the new government has started acting. The Bank of England has been given the independence to set the interest rate to achieve the inflation target set by the government. Britain's European affairs are to be run in a much more positive way. The welfare state will be reformed to make it more work-friendly and more financially viable. The revolution will continue.
What are the implications for India of the Labour victory? It would be nice to think that the Congress can reinvent itself like the Labour Party did, democratise its structure and revise its philosophy. But I think that is unlikely, atleast while the current generation of leaders survives. The Indian Left is the last of the unreconstructed Left anywhere in a democracy in the world. It would be a miracle if the Left could unite and modernise itself as a progressive, secular and economically literate party. Perhaps. Again if the present generation goes away. For the rest, one has little hope that any party is capable of generating an all-India platform round which decent progressive people could combine and bring economic prosperity by building a liberal competitive economy. The present corrupt polity with its hypocritical concern for the poor, its delusion about India's grandeur and its lamentable failure to even minimally reform Indian society will continue.
Speaking of delusions, it would be wise not to expect the new UK government to be automatically pro-India on everything. This Labour Party has few links with India. The old guard knew Nehru and Indira Gandhi but the new one does not. There are more Asian MPs "" five rather than three "" but that would make little difference. The Kashmir problem is best tackled in direct bilateral contacts with Pakistan as has already been begun by Mr Gujral. India's isolation in the UN will have to be tackled and the UK's support earned, not taken for granted.
A more substantial basis for Indo-British co-operation is of course on the business side. After 50 years of Independence, it is time now to leave the post-colonial mess to be sorted out by ourselves and start working on an economic relationship which will be mutually beneficial. There is not only the scope for UK investment in India but also for a reverse flow. The NRIs have already shown how successfully British markets can be penetrated if you have a high quality product or service to sell. India has some very large corporations in the public as well as the private sector. A time may have come to seek British markets and takeovers of British firms by the Indian giants. So far the traffic has been from Britain to India, at least as far as official support and sponsorship are concerned. This can be and should be reversed. Of course, the limits on rupee convertibility on capital account may be an obstacle, but even this obstacle should be removed sooner rather than later. It was the UK's decision to deregulate
its own foreign exchange transactions in 1979, three years after the debacle of the sterling and the IMF visit, that transformed the UK economy. Boldness in these matters pays good dividends. After all, India tried caution and regulation and socialist planning for 40 years. Then in 1991, it all broke down. Having paid the price for all that planning, now has come the time to reap some fruits of boldness. All that is needed is a vision of the future and a willingness to jettison cherished old but obsolete beliefs. That is the message of the Labour landslide.
