Recently, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party in Britain, was re-elected by his party with over 60 percent of the vote. That may seem insignificant, but it isn’t. His re-election may signal the beginning of the end of electoral competitiveness in the United Kingdom.
Corbyn is the most left-leaning leader of the Labour Party in its history. He represents a group of extremists within the Labour Party who favor abandoning Britain’s nuclear defense, forsaking Britain’s commitment to NATO (at a moment when Vladimir Putin is an increasing threat), and re-nationalizing industries. Labour’s leader is a hit with younger, leftist voters who treat him much like similar American voters do Bernie Sanders, i.e. as an anti-establishment folk hero who is voicing their views and leading a new movement.
However, the country at large does not share those “movement” views. Most of the “movement’s” positions are opposed by a majority of Britons. Not surprisingly, that disapproval has spilled over into attitudes towards the party. The Labour Party’s approval ratings are the lowest in several decades.
While Labour is veering off to the extreme left, the Conservatives are appealing to the center of the British electorate — and winning. Polls conducted during the summer found that only 16 percent of U.K. voters wanted Corbyn to become prime minister. That compared with 52 percent who preferred the current Conservative prime minister, Theresa May. Voters did not even want Corbyn to continue as Labour leader; two-thirds wanted him to step down from that post.
Other Labour Party officials, including most of his colleagues in Parliament, fear that Corbyn and his supporters will lead the party to electoral disaster in the next election. A former Labour Party leader has lamented that the party has not been “further from power since the 1930s.”
How did it happen that a major political party went off the rails? The problem comes when ideologues take over a political party. It is not difficult for them to do so in an age of general voter apathy. At such times, moderates tend to stay home while extremists remain to dominate. Moreover, those ideological activists are buttressed in their extremism by reinforcement media, particularly the Internet.
The result is a party that becomes more inward looking and less interested in the opinions of the majority of voters. The party base is egocentric and unwilling to consider how its policies or leaders appear to potential swing voters. Eventually, the main goal becomes ideological purity not compromise that would lead to accommodating the middle, winning electoral victories, and actually governing.
Today’s U.K. is not the only example of the disintegration to a one-party state. Canada experienced a one-party state for two decades in the 1960s and 1970s as Liberals dominated federal politics and Conservatives failed to break through the Liberal hegemony. Mexico was a one-party state for seven decades before the dominant party was ousted in 2000 and competitive politics returned.
Several states in the U.S. today have one-party states. For example, Republicans find it difficult to win in Hawaii, while Democrats are no longer competitive in Wyoming. Utah, unfortunately, is in the same boat as well. Democrats have not elected a governor since 1980, a U.S. senator since 1970. Indeed, no Democrat has been elected to statewide office since 1996.
It is disastrous for any nation or state to have only one competitive political party. The result is a lack of accountability, as well as an exclusion of the voters from decision-making. Elected officials acquire a sense of entitlement when they face token opposition. Campaigns are nonexistent; neither side actually campaigns in such an environment. As a result, voters do not make meaningful choices; they rubber-stamp.
It would be sad to see Britain become that way as well. Although it is unlikely, the solution may be a coalition of moderate Labour and the centrist Liberal Democrats. That may wake up the Labour Party to the disastrous course it is taking. Yet, maybe not. Ideological purists often are too narcissistic to take such cues.
Richard Davis is a professor of political science at Brigham Young University. He is the author of "The Liberal Soul: Applying the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Politics." His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of BYU.