Is the “Third Way” an ideological compromise or a new Political Philosophy in its own right?

TSR Wiki > Life > Debating > Debating Help > Is the “Third Way” an ideological compromise or a new Political Philosophy in its own right?

Is the “Third Way” an ideological compromise or a new Political Philosophy in its own right?

During the 1980s, Democratic Socialists found they were posed with an ideological question, namely: ‘Which way now for British Socialism?’. The dominance of the Conservative Thatcher government with its ‘New Right’ policies in British politics created a situation which made it increasingly difficult for Socialists to have any credible influence in the running of the country. The Labour party was seen as a ‘spent force’, with its tired policies being viewed as irrelevant and out of touch with the modern world. Something had to change ideologically within the party in order for Labour to have any realistic chance of being re-elected in the near future.

This transformative force began to come to the foreground during the late 1980s, largely through the work of Labour leader Neil Kinnock, who aimed to move the party from its current position of ‘Democratic Socialism’ to one of ‘Social Democracy’. This trend was continued by the two successive Labour party leaders – John Smith and Tony Blair. The latter is accredited with introducing the greatest ideological changes within the party; creating a position of true ‘Social Democracy’ as the Labour stance. In 1998, Political Theorist Professor Anthony Giddens published a book named “The Third Way”, which mapped out a further evolution of Socialism, which mixed many of the policies advocated by the New Right with those of traditional Socialism: thus achieving a Third Way, or middle ground. Tony Blair saw this as the future of the Labour Party, and duly absorbed many of Giddens’ ideas. In order to demonstrate its move from traditional Socialist ideas to new ones, the party adopted the name of ‘New Labour’: the purpose of such a title being to distinguish it from the ‘old’ movement which had been associated with the discredited policies of the early 1980s. Blair saw this new name and new ideological stance as the revitalising spirit which would lead ‘New Labour’ to election victory. He was proved correct when his party enjoyed a landslide victory at the 1997 general election, and the apparently enduring success of New Labour pays tribute to the fact that such an ideological mélange has paid off.

However, questions have been raised about the political nature of the ‘Third Way’. Critics have stated that it is but a compromise between the ‘First Way’ (Traditional Socialism) and the ‘Second Way’ (the New Right), whilst supporters have claimed that it is a ‘completely new political doctrine which can inspire support from all sections of British Society’. This essay seeks to analyse the various strengths and weaknesses of the Third Way, and to question whether such an evolution of Socialism is indeed healthy for British democracy.

The ‘Third Way’ sought to find a middle ground between two rather conflicting ideologies, Traditional Socialism and the New Right. The former proposed collectivist solutions to most economic and social problems: state ownership of the means of production and major industries, an extensive welfare state, strong trade unions and high levels of personal taxation to finance the redistribution of wealth and income. The New Right, on the other hand, championed free market capitalism, the pursuit of individual self interest, a smaller, reduced role for the state, free labour markets and low levels of personal taxation. From this, it is easy to deduce that these two ideologies were seen as conflicting enemies. This conflict was manifested in the political arena, and a campaign of staunch adversarial politics created a system which was deeply divided. Thus, Giddens’ Third Way bridges the gap between the two camps: the principles of the Third Way are clearly influenced by both ideological strands. For instance, while the New Right believed the market should operate freely to ensure maximum profit for the individual, and the Traditional Socialists advocated great economic limitation by the state, the Third Way seeks to create an economy which can operate freely, but safeguards against excessive economic power in the hands of a few. The Third Way economy is therefore a ‘mixed’ one, as Giddens writes, ‘the mixed economy looks…for a synergy between public and private sectors, utilizing the dynamism of the markets, but with the public interest in mind.’ Other principles follow this method, with the state being limited by co-operating with the private sector; a welfare system which concentrates on eliminating the causes of social exclusion; a highly formalised education system which is designed to promote national standards whilst reducing social problems; and an authoritarian position with regard to law and order, but combined with measures to deal with causes such as social exclusion. This mix of Socialism and Conservatism has proved to be a great success for New Labour – proved by the three successive General Election victories and a large majority in the House of Commons.

Supporters of the Third Way see it as the natural evolution of Socialism, and is viewed by many as ‘Socialism for a modern age’. Nevertheless, New Labour’s opponents have seen the party’s shift on the political spectrum as nothing but a vote grabbing tactic. Many New Labour policies have been seen as Conservative ones – such as the recent Education Reforms. This throws into question the apparently positive nature of the Third Way: Is the Third Way a healthy strand of Socialism, and does its formation inhibit pluralist democratic values? The recent ‘Terror Bill’ is a good example. The Conservative Party voted ‘No’ against the Government proposal to extend the detention of suspected terrorists to ninety days, an action which lead to the proposal being defeated. Such a policy is seemingly a traditional conservative one – especially with such a tough stance on crime. However, in line with tradition, the Conservative opposition opposed the government. Therefore, a proposal which is seemingly in the national interest was rejected. Is this a positive thing for Britain? Apparently not. Furthermore, the clash of New Labour and Conservative policies could potentially create the Marxist nightmare of a ruling, bourgeois ideology, in which a melange of revisionist socialist principles overlaps with conservative ones. While Blair and New Labour have enjoyed great electoral success, is it healthy for British politics to have a Government and an Opposition which subscribes to similar policies?

Therefore, it appears that the much celebrated ‘Third Way’ is indeed simply a compromise of Socialist and New Right ideas. This creates an ideology which lacks originality and a party which does not have the benefit of an ideological opposition in the House of Commons. Hence, the next leader of the Labour party has a difficult choice to make: to stick with the present ideological position for the benefit of his and his party’s name; or salvage what is left of the party’s ideological roots and bring New Labour back to its traditional left wing position – in the name of pluralism and democracy. Such a decision is a tough one – but could decide the nature of British politics for the foreseeable future; potentially creating a more democratic system which dispels the current trend of apathy and encourages greater active political interest from the electorate - forming a politically astute Britain which can boast the healthy, pluralist political system necessary for true social amelioration.