Pluralism is more than choices - it is how we re-engage and build a real civic consensus

Corbyn, seen here speaking at at CWU event in Manchester, rejected the idea of a multi-party progressive alliance at the final Labour Leadership hustings in Glasgow.

The stalemate in Spanish politics, unbroken now by two elections and very much looking like leading to a third election in the space of a year (Jones, 2016), is the most obvious symptom of a divided society. But Spain is hardly alone in that.

Recent elections in the UK have shown British politics heading the same direction. The two traditional big tents are losing their grip and people are looking for other options. As a result, the broad social cross-sections needed to hold majority power - even under a majoritarian two-party system like first-past-the-post - are becoming harder to build and control.

The questions is, what can be done to avoid such an impasse?

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the surest path to stability is pluralism. But getting there requires rethinking what is meant by pluralism, away from the simplistic image of a fractured multi-party politics.

The tendency in the UK has been to portray plural systems, with their coalitions between multiple parties, as a system of never ending deal making - in contrast with the direct and little-trammelled power afforded to majority governments by the two-party system.

But that deeply simplistic picture ignores both the necessity for representation and the true building of consensus. Under the two-party system, politics is squeezed and distilled into narrow establishment and opposition positions - politics simplified into two parties locked into adversarial stances that drive a wedge through society.

That reduces politics to a polarised dynamic, with no space for nuance. Worse still, policy has become a professional art, the preserve of a narrow group of think tanks and party policy officers, that usually offers watered down versions of public campaigns - ostensibly to make them broadly palatable.

But trying to stretch a big tent over a broad membership, and expecting them to fall in line behind a professionally crafted policy platform, just alienates people from the responsibility to try to find consensus and imagine grounds for agreement.

It is politics made more efficient, but robbed of its essential character: as a public forum for critical debate on how to shape our common space, where representation and inclusion are the priority not minority voices competing to 'win' the right to direct everyone else from their own narrow perspective.

It is one of the more disappointing elements about the Labour Party that it has consistently failed to grasp this idea - even under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn talks of re-engaging social movements, but fails to engage with pluralism, with multiplicity, rejecting particularly the prospect of a Progressive Alliance.

Even under democratic socialist leadership, the party is still presenting itself as the self-styled only option, where the ideas of the Left - even when including trade unions and social movements of various and diverse kinds - must still ultimately be filtered through one single political party, pitching for broad public consumption, to achieve political expression.

What a contrast that is to how Barcelona's radical democrats view their task. Barcelona En Comu, not so much a party as a civic alliance, also talk of rebuilding the civic representation aspect of politics, but they are demonstrating it in practice.

Their municipal government is built around an alliance of various movements and parties. They understand their task in the civic space, in the movements and in the squares, is to involve both their opponents and fellow travellers of different parties alongside their own supporters, if they are really going to build a system of political pluralism - representative and inclusive

If Catalunya, the wider Spain and Britain keep down the road of adversarial politics the only result there can ever be is a society where the majority feel disconnected and uninvolved with their own physical and social spaces.

Politics isn't about winning. Its about representation. A plural politics takes as its starting point ensuring that people are able to see their views represented - whether directly through assemblies or a little more indirectly through multiple parties.

The next step is to rethink how these groups then interact. Rather than adversaries, these groups then hold a responsibility to craft, through debate, discussion and, yes, compromise, their various policy themes into a coherent shape that reflects the particular, distinct and plural society from which they have sprung.

Only then can people begin to reconnect, both with politics and with their civic spaces. Consensus is key. Representation is key. Pluralism is not the beginning of division and instability, but the only path to a real and lasting stability.

Secularism is supposed to be at the heart of free thought and expression, not an excuse to suppress them

Written over the door of the Faculte de Droit in Paris is the promise of liberty, equality and brotherhood from the secular state to its citizens, yet secularism still faces accusations of overbearing paternalism.

Secularism, at its most literal, means the separation of church and state. At the core of the principal is the idea that no religion - or any other formal, organised, set of beliefs - should play an integrated role in the governance or administration of civic institutions, so as to maintain their neutrality.

However, it is also intended to guarantee to citizens the freedom of conscience, and through that policy give support to freedom of thought. So as much as it means religion staying out of public administration, it also meant the state leaving personal beliefs, including religion, as a private matter.

How that principle is applied in practice, in modern times, has come under a spotlight in the past week thanks to the response of some to a rising fear in Europe of fundamentalist Islam. In France, local government in some areas have passed prohibitions against certain kinds of outward religious expression - the most notable result so far being the clamp down on 'burkinis' (Amrani, 2016).

One thing is absolutely clear. Issuing legal commands as to what women can and cannot wear does not convey "la légitime et saine laïcité", the legitimate and healthy secularity, or the guarantee of the freedom of conscience, promised by the French secularism that descends from the 1905 laws.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the world today is not the world into which those particular laws where issued. Listed amongst the laws of 1905, almost paradoxically next to the freedom of conscience, was the prohibition of public displays of religion.

The France that had the 1905 law applied to it was a country deeply entwined with the Catholic Church. The entangling influence of the church was deeply resented and the emergence of laicite came hand in hand with a history of anti-clericalism that pushed back and tried to wrestle society out of the grip of the clergy..

The Left bloc government that advocated secularism, formed by Radicals and Socialists, wanted in particular to end the influence of Catholicism over education - which had been traditionally provided almost exclusively by the clergy. Yet the broken clerical influence was simply replaced with that of the centralised state.

As much as laicite, and in particular secular education, was a republican and humanist project, it was also deeply nationalist. In early twentieth century France, secularism was at the centre of a broader policy of 'modernisation', that sought to establish and project the power of a centralised nation-state - seeking to make the civic state the centre of a society with a singular, integrated and unifying, language and culture.

In modern Europe, secularism has largely succeeded, yet it has done so alongside the advance of the centralised nation-states and nowhere in Europe has secularism and the nation-state been so heavily intertwined as in France - as to represent a major component of the 'national values' and national identity.

The rise of extremist and fundamentalist religion, and extremist and fundamentalist ideologies - that seek to play an active role in government to directly impose their values on citizens - do call for careful thought. The Nationalist Right's answers to these complex matters has been to call for a more strict imposition of 'national values' - and in France that has meant using secularism as the means to legitimise an overbearing policy.

This is a threat to the principles of secularism. The independence of the functions of government from any interest group is a worthy idea. The freedom of conscience is essential. As George Clemenceau - former Prime Minister of France, a radical and a contemporary to the 1905 laws - argued that you do not get liberty by fighting one tyranny with another tyranny.

Clemenceau wrote of his certainty that "apprenticeship in liberty can only be served through liberty" and that to "struggle against the church there is only one means - the liberty of the individual". Support for free thought, openness and tolerance are the progressive response to closed tyrannical intolerance. Stooping to the regulation of citizens' clothing just swaps one degrading paternalism for another.

'Housing market' is a lie - there is no market, only a corporate monopoly, fueling a crisis, that needs desperately to be broken

Government right-to-buy policy is plugging holes in the greedy housing sector, but is unsustainably syphoning homes form social housing to do so.

Britain's housing crisis rumbles on. When Theresa May returns to the role of Prime Minister in earnest, to face whoever will be (at least nominal) leader of the opposition, getting to grips with housing has to be at the top of the list.

An uncomfortable fact for the Conservative leader is that the money made by private landlords from housing benefit - received as a welfare benefit by households in order to pay their rent - has doubled over the last decade (Gayle, 2016).

That fact goes side by side with the continued rise in rents and prices, escalating beyond reality for the overwhelming majority of people (Chakrabortty, 2016), and the failure of successive governments to build sufficient housing. And then there is the siphoning off of homes from social housing stock (Williams, 2016).

To plug shortfalls in properties available for purchase by those with the means, former Chancellor George Osborne raided social housing and housing associations. Rent-to-buy took affordable housing for the least well off, to feed a greedy and bloated system in danger of collapse.

All of these facts point to a very particular problem. The housing system is very much tailored to the interests of a small group of people. Those who own property and those who have capital to spend, playing in a housing market that is exclusively for them.

Conservative policy has failed the worst off and served only an upper middle class of wealthy property owners and those fortunate enough to already have some 'equity' in the system. Everyone else, the poor and the young, is automatically frozen out.

For some this is a double blow. While private landlords reap astounding profits from housing benefits - since the government effectively subsidises this rentier practise, so literally encourages this state of affairs - it is the taxpayer that is funding this policy.

What is more astounding is that investing public funds instead in a big increase in homes in the social housing sector would actually reduce this private landlord subsidy by billions (Gayle, 2016), saving taxpayers huge sums at a time when spending on essential services is stretched thin.

Amongst the first tasks has to be to get to grips with the rental sector. New York housing chief Alicia Glen has argued that Britain's problem is the expensive and inefficient private landlording system (Murray, 2016), which flies in the face of the lower costs, and so cheaper rents, of operating at scale - although that implies that the purpose is efficient service not self-enrichment of rentiers.

But larger organisations, operating at scale shouldn't be the end of the story. There is room and need for mutuals and cooperative principles - for rental housing that can operate at scale and which honours the stake held by those investing time and money in living in those properties.

However, this is nothing less than a complicated situation. Not all private landlords bad or greedy. For some it is an essential source of income in hard times - look at the difficult situation facing tourist trammelled Barcelona, where efforts to stop illegal renting to tourists runs up against the needs of people with otherwise limited sources of income.

A small clan of property owners are being enriched by rising property prices as most people are simply cut off from access. Some exploit that position further as rentiers, raking in cash from private renters and from public subsidy. It is clear that a new approach is needed.

Part one of any response has to be public investment: build more housing and make most of it affordable, truly affordable, social housing. So many ills could be fixed through this one act of government spending, one that would pay itself back many times over.

But part two is more difficult. The entire housing sector needs to be urgently rethought, because it is not fit for use. Housing, a human essential, a necessity like fresh water, is being held ransom by those few holding it as property - stifling supply and bloating prices in bubbles that have disastrous rippling results.

Not least, steps should be taken to discourage unproductive property accumulation - like land banking or small rental property portfolios that gouge prices - and policies such as land value taxes should be taken into serious consideration, because the phrase 'housing market' is a lie. There is no market, only a corporate monopoly that needs desperately to be broken.

Closed or Global - is that the only choice? South America's political tides hold an important lesson for Europe

Mauricio Macri, Argentina's new globalising President, casting his ballot in 2015. Photograph: Mauricio Macri vota by Mauricio Macri (License) (Cropped)

Europe, after nearly a decade of economic turmoil, seems to find itself on a precipice. Behind lie the shattered ruins of the social democratic consensus and the overbearing shadow of its failing replacement globalisation. Ahead in the darkness is sectarianism: populist, nationalist and authoritarian.

Populism in South America

While wrestling with this seemingly polarised and precarious position, Europe should look to South America. After its own struggles to shake off America imperialism, the Regan-Thatcher neoliberal doctrine, a crisis of poverty and, in parts, conservative authoritarianism, South America saw a popular electoral revolt in favour of populist parties offering social rights.

In obviously varying circumstances, but with some common discontents, from Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Socialists in Venezuela 1998, to Nestor Kirchner's Peronist Justicialists in 2003, and Evo Morales' Campesino Socialists in 2005, and others in between, a so-called pink tide overturned the neoliberal status quo.

Despite the obvious allusions to socialism, the popular campaigns for social rights where fought within an increasingly closed state system, with overtly nationalist overtones - and frequently at the cost of political rights and transparency. Those who began as reformers faced accusations of endorsing narrow and unshakeable parties of power, with the "typical vices: personalism, clientelism, corruption, harassing of the press" (Bosoer & Finchelstein, 2015).

Populist-Globalist Revolving Door

As social conditions have undermined the globalist response to Europe's crisis, economic conditions have undermined South America's closed populist system. Weak exports have led to a continuing downturn (The World Bank, 2016) - exposing the fact that it is easier to maintain repression if social rights keep being extended along with the money to fund them.

As Europe is increasingly turning from globalism to find populism ahead, South America is doing the opposite. Mauricio Macri, for Republican Proposal party and Cambiemos coalition, presented Argentina with an open globalised alternative to the closed populist nationalist government of the Justicialists in 2015 and was elected President.

But there is little reason to believe that South America's new open global option is likely to meet any less dissatisfaction than it has in Europe, where the 2008 financial crisis, and the sovereign debt accrued in managing it, was seen as an opportunity by the globalised financial sector - ostensibly pressing the idea that governments are not above the law, in order to effectively claim rent on state debt.

Argentina itself already has long experience of wrangling with this system, that has used American courts to try and force state policy on repayment of national debts, accumulated through bond sales. The power of that global finance sector and its power to shape fiscal policy, in effect essentially shaping the economics of entire states, is all too familiar a subject of exasperation in Europe.

The Role of Social Democracy

While South America has struggled for stability between populism and globalism against a back drop of military juntas, in Europe, for a time, there was shelter to be found within social democracy. The social democratic project provided safeguards against either extreme, closed and global, while trying to include the benefits - like social rights and widespread access to capital and investment.

However, the 2008 crisis undermined social democracy. Its adherent parties have been severely weakened, perhaps fatally. Too many times, social democracy chose to back the alienating establishment instead of reforming it and the moderate left, in Europe and South America, found itself shackled to neoliberalism as part of a desperately defended mainstream.

South America's leaders responded to economic pressures by advancing a closed system. Leaders in Europe, after 2008, embraced the global system to overcome its problems. Now, with both under pressure, they seem ready to swap. But neither have proved to be a sound solution.

What is needed is a 'new' social democracy, a replacement for the old and worn out system. But a new balance has to be found. It isn't enough to be a part of the establishment, to be an insider, taking the edge off of its worst extremes. A consensus that recognises the demand for political liberties, civil rights and pluralism alongside social rights, that embraces an open society through internationalism rather than globalism.

Right now, the choice presented to the people of South America and Europe is between closed and global. But it doesn't have restricted to these exclusive polar positions. It is a false and exclusionary dilemma. A better consensus is possible.

The headlines are dominated by the Labour Party, but the progressive movement goes on beyond its factional strife

Progressive politics goes on, far beyond the limits of Labour and its grimly destructive leadership civil war. Photograph: Protesters outside last Autumn's Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.

The summer recess is usually the slow news time for British politics. This summer was supposed to be different. The two big parties, Labour and Conservative, side by side, would hold leadership races, setting the political agenda for the return to business in September. However, the Conservative race saw Theresa May blast away the field in short order.

That left the leadership challenge in the Labour Party to hold the spotlight all by itself. And that contest, with all of its chaos and rancour - including the party taking legal action against its own leader and even its own membership - has been a sour experience for progressives. To try and balance out the negativity of Labour's internal wrangling, here is a look at what other progressive party's and groups have been up to around Britain over the summer.

Sadiq Khan and London

In London, Sadiq Khan has set out early to establish himself in his new role as Mayor of London. One of his very first appearances was at London Pride - a strong progressive symbol with which to start his time in office. There will be arguments about his policies, but what Khan has gotten right, so far, has been image.

If there is anything with which the Left has traditionally struggled, and which can do so much to energise support for progressive policies, it is presenting a bright and positive vision. In Canada, Justin Trudeau led the Liberals back to power with a positive feeling campaign, and the image Khan's has projected bares much in the way of comparison - not least their appearances at Pride events.

On policy, the one issue that has stood out so far, and on which Khan has been particularly strident, is arguing for greater autonomy for the city. Part of the post-Brexit response, but also part of a movement emerging across Europe, Khan wants London to have more devolved powers to help is combat the predicted negatives resulting from leaving the European Union.

Khan has been making a determined push, post-Brexit, with his social media hashtag "#LondonIsOpen", getting celebrities and athletes on board in support. It seems to be the sum and central theme of Khan's start as Mayor: open to all people and open to business, everyone is welcome.

When talking of London, it is also worth mentioning the work of Take Back the City, a grassroots political and community organisation that aims to get directly to people in London's communities and make their voices heard. Amina Gichinga, a member of the group and London Assembly candidate, took part in the Progressive Alliance event in July. Gichinga made a strong and eloquent case, very much worth watching, for what needs to change in how politics is conducted in Britain.

Liberal Democrats

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats continue their rebuilding efforts. The party seems to have returned to what it did best, focussing on local and community politics. At the 2016 local elections, the Lib Dems made the most gains of any party and has since continued to win local elections with growing numbers.

But to restore the party's tarnished image is a much broader work. To that end, on the wider British scene, Tim Farron has been trying put the party to work fighting on key issues. One such issue was Brexit, on which Farron confirmed the Lib Dem commitment to Europe and aligned the party with the 48% who voted to stay.

Most recently, Farron has been critical of vague promises from the Treasury to match European Union funding in the near future. He has called for the government to show where the alleged £350m a week of funding will come from and demanded that long term reassurances be given to those who depend on it can make important long term decisions.

Various leading members of the party have also associated themselves with efforts to build cross-party cooperation. Vince Cable took part in the Progressive Alliance event, proposing an electoral pact come the next general election, and Paddy Ashdown is backing More United, an effort to promote crowdfunding of candidates on the basis of values rather than party allegiances.

That attitude to cooperation is reflected in Wales, where, now with just one Assembly Member, the Lib Dems have entered into Coalition government with Labour. Former leader Kirsty Williams took on the office of Education - and has stated absolute opposition, on behalf of Wales' Coalition, to the reintroduction of grammar schools.

Caroline Lucas and the Greens

Last, but not least, are the Greens. The Green Party as a whole has made small gains, but still haven't made the major breakthrough - on the verge of which they seem to have been for a decade. In Scotland, at the 2016 elections, the Greens moved into fourth place. Yet in London they merely retained their seats and in Wales got nowhere near the seats.

However, their sole MP Caroline Lucas has been amongst the most active and most visible of the Left's political figures and campaigners over the first half of the year. From her NHS Bill, to campaigning for cross-party cooperation and a Progressive Alliance; Lucas has been the most visible, perhaps bar Sadiq Khan, and certainly the most outspoken, coherent and unabashed leader - not in title but in deed - amongst progressives.

Punching far above the weight of her one seat out of six hundred and fifty, her loud advocacy for pluralism in politics has helped move forward the campaign for proportional representation and for cooperation between progressives. Lucas has announced that she will run again for the party leadership, a move that many may see as important to the party's near future development - considering her visibility and popularity.

Progress and Pluralism

The future of the Left depends on more than who is the Labour Party leader. That's a hard message to accept, particularly for those who feel the blows from the Conservative axe most weightily and fear that Labour is only party with a realistic shot at displacing the axe-swingers. But the party has used that fear as a way to gouge support for decades, while alienating potential supporters all the while and shutting down any plurality of debate.

The Left can be about more than just one, jealous, centralising party. The Left is a place of diversity: civil rights, equality, sustainability, justice, cooperation, feminism, democracy, liberalism, radicalism, the individual and the community - thousands of voices with thousands of issues. Trying to force them all into one tent, to represent them all with one voice, hasn't worked and won't.

Through debate, discussion, thinking, testing and embracing a myriad of perspectives, the Left has the broad resources to build positive and inclusive visions. The sooner Labour embraces pluralism, the sooner progressives can start fighting back against conservatism, in ways that play to their strengths - because the path of pluralism is not division and weakness: it is strength in diversity.

Rail chaos opens discussion of alternatives: Mutuals and co-ops offer community a stake, instead of rentiers who extract local wealth and without Whitehall centralisation

Photograph: Brighton Station from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

One of the big issues in the past few weeks has been the Southern Railways shambles, that has again exposed deep problems with the British system of rail franchises - at least three rail franchises face major strike action in the coming weeks (Topham, 2016; Topham, 2016{2}).

The franchise system has faced plenty of criticism. At the core is that a rail franchise is little more than permission to set up a toll booth and start extracting rent, squeezed out with higher prices, cuts to staff and services, and limiting expensive maintenance (Chakraborrty, 2016; Woodman, 2012; Milne, 2012).

Solutions to what are natural monopolies is not a simple matter. As a result much was made of Jeremy Corbyn's 2015 leadership election promise to renationalise the railways (Mason, 2016) - a brave decision for a party all too easily beaten over the head as centralising, bureaucratic, exorbitant spenders with a disdain for free enterprise (Kellner, 2014).

The latest round of railway chaos put Corbyn's policy of renationalisation on the table for a Readers' debate in The Guardian yesterday (Marsh & Walsh, 2016). The nature of the discussion was interesting to watch.

There was positivity towards renationalisation to be found, with some pointing to the more than a few good examples of public run transport services around Europe. In Paris, or in Germany, there are well maintained railways that are run for considerably lower fares than in the UK (Williams, 2015).

However, it was particularly interesting to see the perception that the only options being offered came in the form of a polarised dynamic, limited to either privatisation under greedy rentiers or nationalisation under inflexible Whitehall bureaucrats.

In fact commenters even went beyond that to observe that the railways in Britain are actually both and neither. That the railways are a kind of national-corporate cartel, with infrastructure nationalised while profit-making services were privatised - even more confusingly, often into the hands of state-owned companies from other countries.

What was clear in people's thoughts was that by some means the running of the rails needs to be decentralised, either with more lines or with more options. That no one interest should be given too much leverage, whether trade unions or rentier investors. And that responsibility for the rails should not be separated from the train services.

That combination, of well run public service and the need for decentralisation, in fact plays into the actual substance of Corbyn's policy, which was for public though not necessarily state railways (Connor, 2015). What Corbyn actually called for was to mutualise the railways as worker-consumer coops.

In mutualism, there is a path that has cut across progressive party lines. From Labour, and obviously the Co-operative Party, to the Liberal Democrats, the idea of workers taking a greater stake has a deep history. Whether as worker-management co-operation, workers on boards, or share-ownership schemes, at least a low level version of mutualism has long been proposed by those on all sides. But the present crisis in Britain's services calls for a deeper commitment.

There is much that mutualism can offer, even within the slow to change framework of capitalism. Autonomy, not least, for people to exercise power over their own working lives. And equity, a meaningful stake in the product of their own work. Between the two, you have a model that challenges both the lopsided struggle between workers and management that often leads to exploitation, on the one hand, and the extraction of wealth, on the other.

Fear of alienation by bureaucratic centralism is understandable in the running of essential services, from housing to energy and transport. But so is the pain caused by exploitative, extractive rentiers, and it has been clearly stated. Too much is taken out of communities, extracted as profit by rentiers (Milne, 2014) - who use wealth to step in and set up toll booths on essential local services. Little is ever fed back into the communities from which these private taxes are levied.

Mutualism and cooperation present an alternative. Working examples are already out there, tying the product of a community's resources to those communities, serving the common good without overbearing central control. But they need support to break through public-private corporatism and that means government to rethink how it intervenes - to be smarter and willing to decentralise.

Around the World: Turkey, off the Periphery

Istanbul, once known in Europe as Constantinople, is a symbol of the historic relationship between Turkey and Europe. Photograph: Genoese built Galata Tower in Istanbul from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Over a frantic night and day in Turkey an attempted coup looked at first to threaten the country's social fabric (Kingsley & Abdul-Ahad, 2016). Western leaders rushed to denounce undemocratic power grabs, calling for respect for Turkey's democratically elected government.

In hindsight, Western leaders may look back at that night as the starting point of an important shift in the balance of Middle East politics. A moment in which Turkey, under a popular authoritarian leader, stepped off of Europe's periphery to place itself instead at the centre of the Middle East.

The Coup of 15th July

Those behind the attempted coup announced their aim to be the protection of democracy and to reinstate "constitutional order, human rights and freedoms" (Beauchamp, 2016). Whatever the truth in this claim to legitimacy, its hard not to see what has followed the coup's defeat in that light. The harshness of the reaction that has followed is enough to make it seem like there were two, not one, attempted coups on 15th July, with one coming out victorious ahead of the other.

The government of Turkey, headed by President Recep Erdogan, swept away what turned out to be only a minor attempt by a small faction. But that was not where the reaction ended. A purge was under way almost immediately with arrests and expulsions in the thousands (BBC, 2016). Human Rights have been suppressed in a state of emergency (Shaheen & Bowcott, 2016). There has even been much criticised talk of bringing back the death penalty (Verhofstadt, 2016).

Erdogan's government swiftly claimed exiled former ally now opponent Fethullah Gulen to be the ring-leader demanding of the United States his extradition (BBC, 2016{2}). Gulen in turn suggested that the coup was a false flag operation, set up by Erdogan to justify his increasingly authoritarian stance and allowed for a witch hunt to follow (Fontanella-Khan, 2016; Plett Usher, 2016).

The US response to claims against Gulen, who lives in exile in Pennsylvania, has been unhurried and tempered. That seems only to antagonised the Erdogan government, which stepped up the rhetoric (Withnall & Osborne, 2016). Accusations flew that the West was harbouring terrorists and even that the West was supporting them.

In the last decade Turkey seemed to be heading ever more towards liberal democracy and membership of the European Union. Its future membership was a much discussed factor of the Brexit referendum. It was a key ally to both the EU and NATO. The steps taken in the last month suggest, sadly, that progress has been halted.

A Change of Step

Turkey has become a lesson in the fragility of liberal democracy. A symbol of how easily even a well settled constitutional order might be destabilised by economic and political tides, or even by the drive of ambition and grip of authoritarianism.

Recep Erdogan's Presidency had already seen the free press suppressed long before the coup (Shaheen, 2016) and was thought to be working towards changing the country's political system into a strong executive presidency (Finkel, 2016).

Whatever the purpose behind the attempted coup, and however the ramshackle attempt on power came about, it seems to have triggered - or afforded an opportunity for - Erdogan's party to clean house of political and intellectual opposition, inflaming Turkey and accelerating its embrace of popular authoritarianism (Tugal, 2016).

As power is centralised and the opposition suppressed, it is worth asking: What is it that Erdogan's party wants?

Even with stronger opposition at the last election, Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) won decisively - AKP took 50% of the vote, ahead of Secular Republican and Kurdish Nationalist opposition. It doesn't seem like the party has much trouble staying in power under constitutional and democratic conditions.

And Erdogan himself was Prime Minister for eleven years, before his subsequent election as President in 2014 - for a total of thirteen years at the peak of Turkish politics. During that time Erdogan and the AKP were thought to be prioritising ascension to the European Union as the country's primary objective.

Yet the party is also propelled by other ideas. A party of conservative democracy, and now increasingly a party of popular authoritarianism, Erdogan's AKP seek to create a 'New Turkey', based on a revival of cultural and traditional values from the Ottoman Empire and the rejection of pro-western modernisation (Cagaptay, 2016) - symbolised in three pillars of glorification of the Ottoman Empire, suspicion of the West and anti-Kemalism, that opposes the constitutional secularism of Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic.

Upon those pillars, Erdogan has strengthened central authority in Turkey even as chaos rages at the border - and pours over onto Turkish streets - with at the least Iraq, Syria and Lebanon engulfed in violence.

From Weakness, Opportunity

The strengthening of central authority in Turkey stands in stark contrast with its European neighbour. The crisis in the Middle East, the desperate mass of refugees - fleeing death at the hands of a paramilitary cult of mercenary terrorists - have exposed the weakness of the European federal project. European unity has been tested on foreign affairs, on refugees, and found wanting.

In Europe's weakness Erdogan may see the opportunity to implement his vision of Turkey. Erdogan certainly has the backing for such a move, stoked by resentment of Western interference. A deep ill-will towards the Western mandated break-up of Turkish power in the region a century ago and has long been a theme.

Seeing the region as it is now, mired by the fallout of a Western intervention that left a power vacuum - which was occupied by a terrorist cult that has even struck on Turkish streets - could easily seem like confirmation or justification of Pro-Ottoman, anti-Western sentiments. It certainly makes it easy to see why a change of policy, away from the periphery of the West to the central power of the Middle East, might seem to Erdogan like an opportunity.

With neighbours both East and West seemingly paralysed with crisis, a political vacuum has opened. It isn't a leap to imagine a popular authoritarian leader, espousing an Ottoman Revival, wants to pivot his country into the central role in the region, at a time when planning for the foundations of its future have to be at least starting.

Corbyn wins by default in first Labour leadership debate, Smith needs to be clearer: what makes him a better leader?

Jeremy Corbyn faced his challenger Owen Smith for the first time at the Cardiff Hustings on Thursday night. Photograph: Corbyn speaking in Manchester in October 2015.

Last night, Cardiff hosted the first hustings of the Labour leadership contest. Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith took to the stage to answer the write in questions and debate one another on their positions. The debate itself didn't offer much separation between the two candidates, a task made particularly difficult when they continuously agreed with each other all night.

The first question of the night was perhaps the most poignant. Are you the candidate Theresa May least wants to face at an election?

Owen Smith opened the night, saying he believed that Labour needed to offer a more vigorous opposition. But he wasn't particularly clear how he'd offer that. Corbyn defended his work so far, saying he had changed PMQs, to end the 'public school theatre' and bring PM under more public scrutiny - using methods like questions from the public.

However, Smith pointed to the low polling numbers that Labour have posted in the past month to say the party has fallen behind under Corbyn's leadership. Corbyn responded by stressing all the progress the party has made, winning at the local elections, and turns the point on its head to says that the fall in the polls was caused by MPs resignations that have disunified the party and damaged its image.

Smith seemed to take that as a personal slight saying hadn't been part of any coup and instead went to Corbyn looking for a way forward, but was disillusioned by his answers. Smith emphasises that he is running to prevent the party from splitting, that he wants unity, but Corbyn simply asks when then did he quit the Shadow Cabinet?

The audience had been fairly controlled up until this point, reserving just small applause for the answers they agreed with. However, it didn't take long for tensions to rise. When the subject party disunity arose, it was Owen Smith who bore the brunt of heckling, although he handled it well.

Corbyn responded to Smith's interpretation of events, saying that Smith cannot deny that his #ShadowCabinet reached out well beyond his own ideological positions - clear a call from Corbyn beyond the audience out to MPs to recognise that it is they that needs to meet him halfway.

The current leader made repeated reference, to highlight the fact, to how he has worked with others across the party, in particular Owen Smith himself, to fight the Tories. He also took a slight stab at Smith, saying he was glad to see the party in harmony on policy, as Owen Smith's policy announcements were all previously announced Corbyn & McDonnell policies.

Smith took the opportunity to suggest that Corbyn was very much in the back seat on those issues, like welfare, on which he was the true leader. He used lots of "I" and "me", saying "It was me" that took on the Tories on Welfare. Corbyn's response to that was short and crisp: "It was your job".

Next up where back-to-back questions on economics for the candidates. First: What is your Industrial Strategy for making UK competitive?

Corbyn pitched his National Infrastructure Bank and how it might stimulate and rebuild the British economy - investing in education, to develop skills, and investing in well paying jobs. He stressed that it would be British workers skills & innovation that would make the UK a global competitor.

Smith called for reindustrialisation. He pointed to Germany as an example that the Thatcherite, and he admits Labour, policy of deindustrialising the UK was wrong. He argued that the UK could return to being an industrial and manufacturing centre that can provide good jobs and can still compete globally.

The second part of the economic double-header was to ask the candidates what they will do to show voters the party was fiscally credible.

Corbyn says the simple key to credibility was to spend sensibly, starting with smart public investment. As an example he points to the madness of pouring money into the hands of private landlords through housing benefit rather than addressing the core problem by building more social housing.

Smith said, categorically that Tory austerity has failed, having promised not to leave debts to our grandchildren and instead doubling the national debt. He stresses that the anti-austerity position, with public investment, is real path to credibility.

He infers, but doesn't actually say, a line he has been trying out recently - ditching the language of protest, of being against, as in anti-austerity, in favour of a positive position, as in pro-prosperity.

Both candidates comment on their similar pitch and emphasise their agreement. But Owen Smith returns to main question, which he hammers ever more as the evening goes on: who is the candidate most likely to convince the voters of these ideas in the key constituencies like Nuneaton?

The only matter on which the two took truly separate positions on the night was on trident. Corbyn received a big ovation for his opposition to Trident renewal. Corbyn stance was clear, that barbaric nuclear weapons offer no solution to the security concerns of the modern day and diminish our international standing.

Smith made the case to the room for multilateral disarmament. Smith argued that none of the 'great powers', amongst whom he sits the UK, is listening to, and following the example of, those who disarm unilaterally.

Smith said that he felt unilateralism was idealistic but naive. That unilateral disarmament put aside responsibility to lead the campaign for global disarmament - for which it was necessary to go the table with something in hand. For his part, Smith was clear that this was simply a difference of opinion, with room for different views.

The candidates fell back into agreement on immigration, both agreeing that it was positive and arguing that the pressures that people feel it is applying were the result of poor support for local government. For both the answer was proper local funding and local investment.

Smith and Corbyn also agreed that putting limits or caps on immigration are not the solution. Smith added that Tories proved that putting finite numbers on immigration doesn't work, while Corbyn argued that the humanitarian way to manage European migration was to work on getting conditions more equal across Europe.

The next question, on anti-Semitism in the party, raised tensions in the room significantly. Corbyn calmly laid out the measured steps he had taken as the leader to combat it, his position even coming with a note of caution to his opponent to respect due process, as Smith said he would take a zero tolerance stance.

Smith then got a poor reaction when he repeated his previously made claim that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is a thing that has only happened and risen in the last year. Corbyn was markedly calm, stating in a measured way that many cases were much older and pre-dated his leadership.

While Smith tried to back down slightly, saying he didn't personally blame Corbyn, the audience didn't respond well. However, Smith then tried to turn the point, attempting to equate the hostile atmosphere in the room, with the hostility within the party, with the issue of anti-Semitism and a fall in the civility of party's internal dialogue.

If there was any point on which Smith clearly lost last night, then this was it. He looked every bit the candidate of MPs, rather than members, looking graceless as he tried to pin anti-Semitism to his opponent and petulant as he tried to pin it to those heckling him.

That brought the hustings to its final two questions. The penultimate was: How will you ensure that the third woman Prime Minister is from Labour rather than the Conservatives?

The host very particularly challenged both candidates. Corbyn was to be responsible for handling party misogyny, a responsibility he accepted. But Smith was more damagingly called specifically to address accusation of his own personal misogyny.

Smith said his positions would show his support for women. He also stressed that any plans to make a difference for women ultimately needed Labour in power, in government. Corbyn was clearer, saying glass ceilings needed to be tackled even at the roots in education, with encouragement for women to go into the sciences, technology and business, and then supported on their way up through legislation that ends social and workplace discrimination.

Finally, the candidates were asked what they would do for Wales? Both Corbyn and Smith answer that more funding is justified, but Smith adds - as was quickly becoming his tag line -  that the best thing for Wales is having Labour in power.

By the end Smith had repeatedly and overwhelmingly stressed the line, pretty much the key element of the Labour Right philosophy, that Labour has to be in government, has to have power, as soon as possible. When asked about making a difference for women, he said the answer was Labour in power. Asked what can be done for Wales, the answer was Labour in power.

That theme carried into the closing statements. Smith said the UK was in crisis and the answer was a Labour government - and he would take party back to power. Corbyn argued that Labour not only can win, but are - pointing to the mayoral victories at the local elections in may. He said the way to win was to mobilise & enthuse people by presenting a real alternative.

In this first debate, neither candidate did anything decisive to put themselves clear. But the reality of the leadership race weighs more heavily on Owen Smith, who needs to prove himself to be clearly the better leader than Corbyn. Otherwise, what would be the point of changing leader?

Last night, Owen Smith focussed heavily on the need to get Labour into Power. But he didn't say enough about how to get there and or it is that makes him the candidate who'll get the party there.

In an honestly close debate, Corbyn nonetheless wins by default for that one simple reason: Owen Smith didn't do the one thing he had to, which was show or tell why he is a better leader than Corbyn.

Never mind policy, never mind showing Corbyn's supporters that he can represent them as well as MPs. If Owen Smith wants to be the next Labour leader, he has to decisively show the skills and planning that clearly marks out his distinct path, from where Labour are now, to Labour in government.

Around the World: Renzi, Last Man Standing

Matteo Renzi, Prime Minister of Italy, speaking at a university in October 2015. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

In Italy, the Left-Right dynamic that emerged over the last two decades finally seemed to have broken in favour of the Left. Silvio Berlusconi's powerful populist Centre-Right groupings lost ground at the 2013 elections and have struggled in the polls since - falling below even the anti-establishment party Movimento 5 Stella (M5S).

Meanwhile, polling had put the party of the Centre-Left, Partito Democratico, consistently ahead as the only party with a truly national mandate. Even despite having had three separate leaders since the election, Pierluigi Bersani, Enrico Letta and now Matteo Renzi, the Democratici have remained the only stabilising force in Italy's political mainstream.

Matteo Renzi, as leader of the Democrats, is the centre point for what little stability remains. Yet he has staked it all on winning a controversial constitutional referendum - with opposition to be found in all corners of Italian politics - making the plebiscite a vote of confidence in his continued leadership and job as Prime Minister (Politi, 2016).

If that were not enough, on top of Renzi's struggle to change the political and electoral systems, he also faces a battle with the European Union over the rules regarding how he can tackle Italy's National banking crisis (Sanderson & Alex Barker, 2016) - a crisis which, if it where ever to fully unravel, would dwarf the chaos into which Greece has been plunged.

Italy's major national banks are drained of funds, burdened by impossible debts - €400bn in bad loans - and need recapitalisation. EU rules say, however, that the government cannot buy out the banks of their debt (Guerrera et al, 2016), despite support for the policy from the European Central Bank (Jones, 2016), unless the burden falls first on investors.

But in Italy that is all but impossible. The largest share of the debts now weigh heavily upon its citizens, thanks to retail bond and investment schemes. That state of affairs has already caused tragedies, when problems at regional banks led to suicides after families lost hundreds of thousands in savings (Poggioli, 2016).

To force creditors to take the burden is to invite the collapse of Italy's biggest banks and destroy the lives of and impoverish its people. Renzi has expressed his intention to defy the EU and save Italy's banking sector, to protect particularly the country's ordinary savers.

Renzi's government also has ambitious and extensive welfare plans in the works to help those in poverty. Intended to begin in September, after a significant trial period, a programme would extend support for hundreds of thousands of families with children living in poverty, covering a million people to €320/month (Conte, 2016).

The €750mn/year investment, to be doubled as the programme goes forward is conditional on meeting educational and job searching objectives, to spread the governments aim of increasing 'income inclusion'. But it could make a massive difference for the most vulnerable.

But future action depends upon Renzi and the mandate of the Democrats surviving the referendum, which looks to be taking place in increasingly heated circumstances. Anti-establishment and anti-European sentiment seem to be rising hand in hand. The banking crisis and the intransigence of European institutions is not helping. It's no big surprise then that September's vote is being touted as the next big turning point for the future of European institutions after Greece and Brexit.

In that toxic atmosphere, Renzi has staked his efforts against his own position - not the Prime Minister's first act of brinkmanship as he tries to reorganise Italy, having made a similar move to pass same-sex unions (BBC, 2016). But the move stakes more than just his own career on the vote: Renzi is virtually the last man standing in the Italian political arena.

The Democrats are internally divided (La Repubblica, 2016) and only the anti-establishment, anti-elite and Eurosceptic populists M5S, who sit with UKIP in the European Parliament, have something approaching the national mandate to take over.

Making the matter personal by making it a vote on Renzi as well is a dangerous move, not least in this political climate - as former President Giorgio Napolitano stressed (Politi, 2016). It clouds motivations, particularly when Renzi is the central figurehead of the establishment, pushing through reforms that are each time controversial to some large group - from labour reforms (BBC, 2014) to same-sex unions, to the banking crisis currently unfolding - and likely only to feed anti-establishment populism.

Europe finds itself now, once more, with a crisis on it hands. The only leader with a modicum of a mandate is risking his position and the country's stability each time he tries to push through a reform. And yet even as Renzi takes on that task, he finds himself also pressured by the EU that would force him to act punitively against citizens by nullifying their investment savings.

The institutional rules themselves are in essence intended as pro-market anti-trust regulations, aimed at preventing state-corporate collusion, as a bulwark against corruption. For progressives - who want to see an open Europe where all parts cooperate in mutual support for the common good - to see them deployed to prevent the state from performing its basic duty to the people is disappointing.

If Renzi falls, Italy risks falling back into political paralysis, much as Spain has been by its electoral deadlocks. The fact so much has come to rest on the career of one politician should be a disconcerting warning to Europe of the need to find stable ground for all of its member states. Yet at present, Europe institutions seems unwilling or unable to respond positively. Europe's present system of legal authority without sufficient democratic accountability has alienated.

Reform is needed. The need is pressing to argue the case against the flaws of the present system and for the building of a better one. The Democrats were elected in Italy on the slogan 'Bene Comune' - the Common Good. It is long overdue time to start rebuilding Europe under the same words.

Around the World: The Trump Insurgency

Donald Trump chose the Republican Elephant as the mount for his insurgent populist campaign that has ridden the divisive politics of the far-right deep into the American political system.

With the two main parties having settled - which might be an almost too painfully apt expression - on their respective candidates, it is now established who will stand, and for what they will stand, in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Hillary Clinton will face Donald Trump - but only on the surface will it be a contest between Democrat and Republican. Beneath the party façade the Presidential race reflects a struggle that is a clear pattern emerging across the Western world, seen clearly in most of the recent elections in Europe, between the mistrusted mainstream and a Far Right insurgency.

Whether it was the Brexit referendum or the French regional elections, in this time of crisis progressives have found themselves having to wrestle with a difficult proposition: whether to oppose an imperfect mainstream at the risk of inviting in the Far Right, or to stand with the hated establishment, itself struggling for legitimacy against authoritarianism and sectarianism.

In the US, Bernie Sanders and his supporters tried to capture control of the mainstream Democrats so that the Left might lead from the front. Having failed, they're now left struggling with what to do in the face of Trump's mirrored insurgency succeeding in its capture of the rival Republicans. Despite Sanders' endorsement of Hillary, many of his supporters remain unconvinced.

Trump's insurgency has increased the sense of urgency, if not yet panic, across the Centre and Left. With no hint of irony, despite the hyperbole, even moderate commentators are expressing genuine fears for the future of American democracy (Finchelstein, 2016; Noah, 2016; Collier, 2016) - perhaps a part of which is an attempt to motivate the Left to fall in behind Hillary by stressing the seriousness of the fight ahead.

Political sensibility suggests that moderacy will ultimately win out - that Trump will eventually, whatever his rhetoric, have to bow to political realism. But that sensibility is cold comfort.

The most dangerous thing Trump has done is to force the coalescence of a constituency, previously scattered and with no common identity, that is persuaded by and supportive of authoritarian values (Taub, 2016). Trump himself, whatever his reactionary verbiage, is less of a concern than what this organised political movement, given common identity, might yet be used to accomplish.

The Republicans, the Grand Old Party (GOP), had already been through the long slow process, from Lincoln's time onwards, of coming under conservative control. But since the 1960s, conservatives have decisively consolidated their control over the party - including inviting the influx of Southern Democrats spurned by the embrace of the civil rights movement by the Democrats.

The consolidation definitively moved the GOP away from the Republicanism of Lincoln toward something more resembling the Republicanism of Jefferson - a parochial populist anti-establishment, or rather anti-elite, politics, with a strict and restrictive adherence to the constitution. Recent decades saw that combined with a sectarian Nativism and a politicised Evangelism.

What Trump has now rallied about the Republican Party is support for a popular authoritarianism able to cut across the distinctions, separating members of the coalition headed 'Republican', with a methodology: signified by a language that is brash, abrasive and often violent.

It is not surprising in the face of Trump's rhetoric that people have drawn connections between him and fascism. The theme of violence against others, against opponents, violence and conflict as decisive social positives, was a crucial tenet of fascism and has been inherited by its more 'democratic' successor populism (Finchelstein, 2016).

The Left and Centre getting behind the mainstream to oppose the rise of these violent ideologies is only the first step. Defeating it at one election is not the end of the matter. It does not address the reasons why people would seek out an abrasive, anti-establishment, anti-elite, strongman leader in the first place. The concerns of those voters must be understood, contextualised and addressed with positive solutions.

The angry, authoritarian-supporting, voters who would back a man like Donald Trump are not the enemies of progressives. For the most part they're victims of economic conditions, looking with misguided hope to strength and might for deliverance. The job of progressives is to extend a hand, show a better way to build a society and to expose the Far-Right programme for the fraud it is.