Soft power in a weaponised world

Many themes in this Putin and now Trump-disrupted world are in play at the moment. One is soft power, which we in the UK have relied on, aided by the strength of our services sector, in the post WW2 years. Soft power requires a global perspective, anchored by a trade in merchandise and ideas worldwide, something which over the last ten years we’ve downplayed. It has little time for supremacist ideas. Country always comes first, yes, but in the same way that family comes first. A well-functioning society is one where cooperate with, we don’t denigrate, other families.

Cutting foreign aid is another very much related theme. It impacts directly in our soft power. So too does immigration policy as outlined a few days ago by Keir Starmer. Do we really risk becoming an island of strangers? And is he really doubting that immigration at least sustains economic growth, or doesn’t actually help drive it?

Here in the UK we’ve tucked in behind the USA, hugging coat tails, slipstreaming, over the last few decades. But you can’t slipstream a stalling vehicle, or one, worse, that wants to go the other way. Nor should a government be slipstreaming an opposition characterised by a total absence of workable policies.

We need, in the UK, a complete reevaluation in how we relate to the world. How our embassies, trade missions and aid policy function. How our role as educators to the world, through our universities, can be expanded. How we, in cooperation with other countries, face up to very real immigration issues. How we build on our digital strengths. How we rebuild our social capital (see below). How we rebuild our relationship with our European neighbours. How we can lead a green revolution. How all the above relate to building our output, productivity, trade and prosperity. Above all, how, in working with the EU, we can strengthen and guarantee our defence.

How, in short, we can relate to the world on our own terms and no longer as a smiling American lackey.

It also requires an end to defeatism. There’s a sense in some quarters that we’re in crisis. But that is in the nature of democracy. Democracies thrive on crises. They add urgency but within a broad boundary of shared expectation.

But is this true now? A related theme specific to our time is the apparent demise of the two-party system which has anchored our politics since as long ago as 1924, and the demise of the old Liberal Party. Tory and Labour long operated within a broad framework of understanding and possibility. With Reform in play, as a false prophet, and five parties in competition in recent local elections, our politics is open to more extreme views. In Germany the Christian Democrats would never cooperate (would they?) with the far right AfD, but our hollowed out Tory party might do just that with Reform.

Is ours in any sense a failed state? As Reform would have us believe. Yes, our self-belief as a nation is at a low ebb. Likewise our social capital, our confidence in our health service, education system, judiciary and prison service, roads and infrastructure, utilities. But in each area there’s a functional basis to build on. Disruption isn’t the answer. A key purpose of government has to be to re-create that sense of self-belief.

We require that same positive approach looking beyond our borders, as exemplify by Starmer’s just-announced deal with the EU. And the government’s India trade deal.

There is a sense in which we are, in the second Trump era, all so much wiser. Under Biden we could wander along the edge of the precipice, worried about falling, but not actually do so. I’ve often written about preserving liberal democracy, sensing that precipice, one of many waving banners with too few taking notice. Now we’re over the edge, and clinging on. With Trump in power we can see what falling might be like.

A cheer or two for democracy

‘The tyranny of the discontinuous mind.’ That’s Richard Dawkins, quoted by Adam Rutherford in a discussion with David Runciman about taxonomy, our human instinct to classify when in reality everything is in a state of flux. The context was the Linnaean system. It applies to plants, of course, and the way we classify racial types (with historically pernicious consequences) and also, in our own homes, the way we classify books as fiction and non-fiction and more, when there is in reality massive overlap.  

I could also apply this to our democracy, to politics, to our party system. As parties try and shoehorn policies into manifestos we can see how imagination and big ideas are constrained. We get frustrated, and yet, is there any other way to manage a democracy?

We do need to clear about what we stand for. The old divides, Tory/Whig, Tory/Liberal and Tory/Labour, had a rhythm and a recognition that power alternated as an expanding electorate dictated, however great our misgivings might be. ‘Tory’ and ‘Labour’ now don’t mean quite what they did. That of course is part of our current problem.

Politics depends on classification. We need to know where we stand, and where others likewise. But, taking the broader picture, behind the apparent certainties lay a rhythm and underlying that rhythm was a sense of progress. In our own time progress has hit the trip wire of populism.

I’m well aware of the very alternative and wonderfully cynical view of a certain Groucho Marx: ‘Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.’ But while it might have a ring of truth it really isn’t helpful.

It’s getting too close to a populist’s playbook. Budding autocrats would concur. You remould the institutions and take over the media and the courts. You suppress dissent. The Orban playbook. I’m reminded of Alastair Campbell’s three Ps, populism, polarisation and post-truth, which in his view, form the foundations of autocracy.

‘Democracy’ as a classification is ancient. Aristotle and Plato differed in detail but autocracy and oligarchy glorified as monarchy and aristocracy were their preference. History shows us where they lead. Aristotle and Plato saw democracy as mob rule, which in ancient Athens was limited by strict property and men-only qualification.

We have by happy accident and occasional design and a huge amount of good fortune fashioned a working democracy which is based around a free press and honest reporting and high levels of education and awareness. It also requires high levels of integrity among our politicians. And from our popular press.

To have the kind of democracy we have – we don’t know, we don’t appreciate, how lucky we are.