The 'new politics' is being put to the test in Spain, where Podemos hopes to show that Syriza was not an anomaly

The Indignados protests in Madrid, in May 2011, that began the decline of the establishment that opened the way for this tight election race. Photograph: Puerta del Sol, Madrid, 2011 by Pablo Garcia Romano (License) (Cropped)

All indications are that the general election in Spain is likely to mark the end of that country's two-party system (Scarpetta, 2015). Following the trend in other European countries, the political establishment is struggling for credibility and that has opened up the possibility of multi-party politics and substantial change.

With four parties running close in a tight race there is a chance, there is a chance that casting a ballot can make a much bigger kind of change than usual. For the Left, this situation presents an opportunity to find out whether the 'new politics', an experiment in decentralised democratic movements, can be effective in practice - the answer to which could have a huge impact far from Spain (Jones, 2015).

To do so, the 'new politics' - symbolised by Podemos - has to prove that it can win, up against a political establishment in Spain that, like most countries in Europe, has settled into a comfortable pattern. After Franco's death, and the restoration of democracy, Spain's political system was been dominated by the Partido Popular (People's Party, PP), founded by followers of Franco, and the Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol (Socialist Workers' Party, PSOE).

Yet the cyclical passing of power from one traditional party to the other was rocked by the financial crisis. The struggles of Spain under the subsequent strain of bailouts and austerity, largely implemented by the Centre-Left PSOE (Sanchez-Cuenca, 2015), led to the the Indignados movement. People took to the streets in huge numbers and the scale of their discontent forced Premier Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to stand down and resulted in PSOE being voted out of office, to be replaced by the People's Party (Tremlett, 2011).

However, while the PP took power, the cycle appears to have been broken by the Indignados movement transforming into two new challengers - parties dependent upon popular movements rather than the old establishment and both, in their own way, standing against the traditional political class.

These 'popular' parties - Podemos ('We Can', on the Left) and Ciudadanos ('Citizens', on the Right) - despite roots in the same movement, have some very apparent differences from each other, evident in the way progressives are split in their opinions of the two movements. Liberals, on the one hand, seem to want to dismiss Podemos as a militant Hard Left faction (Petts, 2015), while on the other side, democrats & socialists talk of Ciudadanos as corrupt capitalists preaching with prejudice and bigotry (Shea Baird, 2015).

Podemos, born fairly directly out of the spirit of the Indignados, enjoyed early success in the EU parliament elections which was followed up in May this year at the regional and municipal elections. Victories were won in Barcelona, Cadiz and La Coruna, amongst others, and most notably in Madrid - where conservatives had held control for 20 years (BBC, 2015).

In these places, candidates backed by Podemos had stood for participatory democracy along with the Left-wing staples of feminism, environmentalism and opposition to austerity. These victories were hailed as a justification of the decentralised approach, with campaigner candidates backed by active citizens who had engaged with people and debated on the streets and in the civic spaces (Colau, 2015).

Yet behind the scenes there is an internal struggle, between two identities, that threatens the 'new politics' image (Ferreira, 2015). One of those identities is that of the horizontal grassroots civic movement, with its citizen's assemblies. The other is symbolised by Pablo Iglesias, the national party's leader, and the faith he places in the power of singular charismatic leaders, particularly himself, and in media savvy (Williams, 2015).

The danger of this charismatic leadership is that it ties the fate and fortunes, ideals and policies, of a whole movement to the personal popularity of one individual - which can have wildly varying, and often fluctuating, results. It also risks reducing a broad popular movement into little more than a fan club, which in turn risks taking the impetus, the momentum, out of the hands of the broader movement upon which the 'new politics' depends.

Ciudadanos, by contrast is much more conventional, supporting small state policies and anti-corruption, and claims to be a centre and liberal party (Kassam, 2015). Its leader Albert Rivera has compared himself to Matteo Renzi, the Democrat in Italy, and to Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader in the UK (Shea Baird, 2015). In practice, though, accusations of corruption and prejudice paint a picture too similar to the negative image encircling UKIP in the UK for the comfort of a progressive (Finnigan, 2015) - with claims of patronising attitudes towards women and connections between the party and Far-Right politics

Whatever their differences, both of these parties have found fertile ground and plenty of material with which to express their, and their followers', discontent. Spain's situation, following the financial crisis, has been dire. Unemployment has escalated to around 25% generally and for the young to over 50% (Navarro, 2014), with a lack of job security facing those who manage to find jobs, (Jones, 2015).

Those facts are represented in national polling, which has all four of the chief parties in a close race, hovering around 20%, more or less (Nardelli, 2015). The People's Party have been averaging around 25%, the PSOE at 21%, Podemos at 20%, and Ciudadanos at 17%. The chance is clearly present for the Radical Left to pull off another extraordinary result.

As for deciding on a government in Spain after the election, that is likely to be a messy affair. Neither of the new parties, even where they are close to the old parties on policy matters, is likely to want to become too entangled with the old establishment. Yet Spain's proportional electoral system will demand some compromises.

Ideologically, this election is asking big questions of the Radical Left, that have little direct concern with who governs Spain. Across Europe, progressives will want the election to provide the answer as to whether the 'new politics' is effective in what must seem like fertile ground - even with rivals Ciudadanos crowding Podemos' political space.

It is of course true that Syriza showed that the Radical Left can win, regardless of how you interpret the struggles that followed. Yet that was a solitary win in extraordinary circumstances - or so it might be dismissed while it remains a singular event. Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership win added to the Left's tally, but what the Left's experiment in decentralised, democratic movement politics needs is a major electoral victory that can follow up on Syriza's success.

In Spain, without some major breakthrough for Podemos, the PP and Ciudadanos on the Right will probably have just enough votes to keep progressives out of office - meaning more austerity and more status quo. For Europe, Podemos failing to make a breakthrough could make life hard for the 'new politics' movements across Europe, like the one supporting Corbyn, that want to reshape their societies around active citizens, engaged with politics and supporting broader participation and co-operation.

Building a genuine, lasting, progressive alternative in Europe can only be done if parties and movements can reach people and get them politically engaged. Winning elections is only a small part. Achieving substantive changes requires the public to be engaged, informed and empowered in a way that is only being offered at present by the Radical Left parties and their 'new politics'. From that perspective, progressives - whether Liberal, Democrat or Socialist, Moderate or Radical - have an interest in finding out whether Podemos, following Syriza, unlocked a way to re-engage citizens with their democracies.

There are two pitches on the table for the future of the political left in the UK - a radical proposal from Caroline Lucas and a pragmatic one from Vince Cable

The September conference marked Tim Farron's first as leader of the Liberal Democrats. Photograph: Tim Farron at the Lib Dem conference rally on 19 September 2015 by Dave Radcliffe (License) (Cropped)

Tim Farron's first speech, as leader, at a Liberal Democrat party conference came at a crucial time for the UK's political Left (Kuenssberg, 2015). Farron used his speech to try and unite liberals and social democrats and relaunch the Lib Dems as an opposition party at a time when the opponents of David Cameron and George Osborne are scattered and divided.

Less than six months after a bad election night for Britain's progressives, the two main parties of the Left have just come out of the turmoil of leadership elections. The internal wrangling, squabbles surrounding their respective contests, and the distraction they caused - particularly Labour's (Bush, 2015) - have allowed the thin Conservative majority to roll on unchallenged.

The question that lingers behind the efforts of figures within individual parties, like Farron, is how progressives of all parties, with their new leaderships in place, should come together to present an opposition to the Conservatives.

With regards to that question, there have been two pitches, each representing a different approach to tackling Conservative dominance: one from Caroline Lucas and the other from Vince Cable.

Shortly after the election, Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, made the first pitch. She suggested that a progressive alliance be formed in time for the next election in order to avoid splitting the anti-Tory vote (Cowburn & Boffey, 2015). Lucas argued that parties on the Left - again, Labour in particular - needed to embrace multi-party politics and co-operation to counter the advantage that 'split' votes offers to the Conservatives under the present first-past-the-post electoral system (Lucas, 2015).

The second pitch was made by Vince Cable, former deputy leader of the liberal democrats and business secretary. Cable took advantage of the dissensions and threats of splits and defections amongst Labour MPs to resurrect the idea of a realignment of the left (Mason & Perraudin, 2015) - an idea favoured by Roy Jenkins and Tony Blair (d'Ancona, 2015). Cable argues that there is a strong support for a progressive, centrist, party and that moderates from Labour and the Liberal Democrats could unite to fill that space. 

The election of Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron, as leaders of Labour and Liberal Democrats respectively, clearly shows where the hearts of the party grassroots are - deep within the radical left. That certainly suggests that there is an openness to the pitch made by Caroline Lucas for a radical alliance, where co-operation replaces the previous status quo, in pursuit of common progressive aims.

However, the parliamentary Labour Party and the so-called 'liberal-left' media have been cold to those instincts (Blair, 2015; Cook, 2015). Since his election, Jeremy Corbyn has been faced with rumours of splits, breakaways and defections by the self-described 'moderate' elements of his party (Peston, 2015).

Tim Farron has so far seen little of this kind of response, despite coming from the more radical edge of the Liberal Democrats (White, 2015). Yet his speech yesterday still tacked to the centre, using language that would appeal to centrist and Right-leaning liberals on hard work and opportunities and making references - that will be familiar to followers of the Labour Party (Penny, 2015) - to the necessity of attaining power before a difference can be made (Farron, 2015).

Within both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, there are signs that the old patterns are hard to break. When one party makes a radical move, the other makes a centrist move - each trying to outmanoeuvre the other to be the one, dominant opposition to the Conservatives.

That certainly seems to make Cable's version of the Left coming together more likely. Historically, as Tony Blair has been at pains to tell the world (BBC, 2014), that has been the only choice that has ever been successful.

Yet that does not dampen the desirability of a radical alternative - nor lessen its necessity. Achieving long lasting and much needed change will require more than just an opposition. It needs a compelling alternative. Cable's proposal provides the first, but not the second. In Lucas' pitch, there is the possibility of both.

The austerity narrative, upon which Conservative domination rides, is part of a larger set of systems and presumptions that all need to be challenged - down to their roots. Only a radical alternative can do that - one that is willing to question accepted realities like the two-party monopoly over the electoral system.

So far, radical opposition, across Europe, has been stifled by its isolation (Fazi, 2015). In the UK, however, there are growing opportunities for progressives to work together - and they must if they are to challenge the establishment and the Conservatives who control it.

But before progressives can start down that road they must ask themselves a question, to which the answer matters: will they work together in the pragmatic centre, hoping to inherit control over the establishment, to soften its edges; or will they pursue a more radical course, seeking to challenge the establishment with an alternative vision?

Tsipras' repeat use of popular votes raises questions about radical democracy and his approach of 'pragmatic radicalism'

Alexis Tsipras' radical united social front faces a challenge as breakaways found Popular Unity party ahead of September election. Photograph: Ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΕΚΜ για την παραγωγική ανασυγκρότηση της Θράκης by Joanna (License) (Cropped)

Alexis Tsipras, Prime Minister of Greece, has resigned. Having succeeded in steering a new bailout agreement through the Eurozone and then through the Greek Parliament, Tsipras has taken the decision to resign and submit his work to the electorate for their judgement (Henley, 2015).

The decision has been seen as either a canny political gamble (Smith, 2015), albeit one with good odds of paying off, or as the latest in a line of dangerous political games that exploit the system (Patrikarakos, 2015). There is, however, an alternative explanation.

From very early on, Alexis Tsipras has been clear as to what he thought was meant by being 'radical' (from Horvat, 2013).

"I believe that today 'radical' is to try to be able to take responsibility for the people, to not be afraid of that, and at the same time to maintain in the democratic road, in the democratic way. To take the power for the people and to give it back to the people."

By that barometer, what Tsipras has done is entirely consistent. His radical democratic vision is a difference of method. Compete at elections and win power, of course. But to then reform and change that power, or through the party give access to that power, to the wider public - rather than allowing them to be alienated from it by their own representatives (Gourgouris, 2013).

Radical democracy of this kind requires action. It requires a radical to engage with political games and try to win. To that end, Tsipras and Syriza did something quite remarkable: they brought together in a single party - at first a coalition, an electoral alliance - for however short a time, a broad progressive group that included communists, socialists, radicals, social democrats and even centrists.

While for many, radicalism has been epitomised best by Yanis Varoufakis' symbolic opposition to austerity and the European austerian establishment order, Tsipras' radicalism is not about the particular policies that come out of the process. The Syriza leader's version is a radicalism of methods not necessarily of ends - an assessment that has led to the unsurprising detachment of Syriza's Left-wing in advance of the autumn elections (Henley et al, 2015).

This has been particularly obvious in how Tsipras and Syriza has often had to be pragmatic about the kind of changes they can actually make (White, 2015) and begrudging, even defiant, in their compliance when forced to accept the implementation of policies with which they do not agree (Gourgouris, 2015).

The idea of radical leaders who take moderate positions and try to reform from within the system, accepting to an extent its challenges and constraints, is not a unique situation (Frankel, 2015) - Lula in Brazil, Mitterand in France, and others, have all made such attempts. But Tsipras' version brings the people along as an active participant.

In that light, Tsipras' surprise use of a referendum during bailout negotiations (Traynor, 2015), maybe should not have been so surprising. Its seemingly confusing message might then be seen as asking the people for a judgement on him and for their endorsement of his approach: a show of dissent in the act of compliance. With this coming election, Tsipras again turns to the people according to his method of keeping them engaged with the business of government.

Tsipras' version of radical democracy could in fact be called 'pragmatic radicalism'. It aims to end the alienation of the people from the business of government, not just to achieve this or that policy. Doing so requires pragmatic leaders, willing to wade into public affairs on behalf of the people, who can be realistic and accept the practical limitations of what can be achieved in that sphere - relying instead on what might be achieved in the future by having the people as an active and vigilant partner.

This alternative viewpoint comes, however, with a few words of caution.

A leader falling prey to their own popularity, or of seeing the opportunity to exploit it, is always a risk. Yanis Varoufakis, Tsipras' former right-hand, has already suggested that Tsipras is turning into a figure like France's former President Mitterand (Anthony, 2015), who led Parti Socialiste to power on a Left-wing Keynesian platform, only to, ultimately, conform to the pressures of the European economic order (Birch, 2015). There is also a fine line in democratic politics between involving the people in the form of popular rule, and in using their support, ostensibly for a personality, to strong arm the political system.

Understanding the difference will have become a crucial issue by the time Yanis Varoufakis and Pablo Iglesias, leader of Podemos, meet for a conversation hosted by The Guardian in October. By then, Tsipras will have presumably won a resounding endorsement for Syriza from the people of Greece, Jeremy Corbyn will have been elected to the Labour party leadership, and Iglesias will be on the verge of leading Podemos into December's Spanish general election.

A new Left-wing politics will be taking its first steps into the sun. When it does, it needs to be in possession of positive lessons derived from serious critique of popular radical democracy. That means understanding what keeps people engaged with the decision making that affects their lives, and, how radical parties can reform the system to empower these people in their day to day lives. But it also means being aware of the danger of potentially falling into simplistic, even personal, popularity contests.