Elections in Britain: Pyrrhic victory for Blair

Tony Blair the Prime Minister has achieved the remarkable feat of the first Labour Prime Minister to achieve victory in three successive elections. Yet he may not have the time to savour this remarkable result. For his huge majority in parliament has been reduced by more than half; he has a majority of 60 odd seats and has lost more than a hundred. His 36 percent of votes is the lowest ever. It is a bare 3 percent more than the rival Tories. It is thanks only to the British electoral system that he has a comfortable majority within parliament.

The Conservatives have improved their score by nearly 40 seats at the expense of Labour. The third party, the Liberal Democrats, have increased their score by a dozen seats under the leadership of Charles Kennedy, who promptly stated that Britain was moving from its traditional two party politics to tripartite politics. He may have spoken out too soon. The Tory leader Michael Howard offered to resign his post as leader of his party because of continuous failure to win the elections. This is democracy at its best because Howard put up a creditable fight and increased his score within the parliament.

It would appear, therefore, that in the latest elections everybody has lost, beginning with Tony Blair, the big loser. What I find astonishing is that commentators, while analysing the results refrain from mentioning the George Bush factor. Blair has been likened to Bush's poodle, so close has been the relations between the two, specially on the question of war against Iraq. We have witnessed the full flowering of relations between the White House and 10 Downing Street.

There is nothing special about the "Special Relationship." Britain has long maintained very special ties with her transatlantic ally, the US. How can we forget former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, bag in hand, explaining her pro-US President Ronald Reagan stand to waiting journalists. Thus it would seem that in the light of long-standing British policy, Tony Blair did not really have an option. George Bush decided to go to war and the Britain of Tony Blair could not leave him in the lurch. The British public by expecting that Blair could act differently did not understand the dynamics of the situation. Once trapped by Bush, Blair had to mouth lies like the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and poor Blair had to swallow from his opponents the epithet of "liar."

During the election campaign, the electorate seemed totally uninterested in the outstanding performance of the economy by the Blair Government. Yet in democratic elections it is matters of domestic concern that determine the result. That Blair did not face a total debacle was because the lacklustre campaign of his opponent Michael Howard, who continued to support Blair in his war against Iraq. One interesting result was in East London (Bethnal Green and Bow), home of a large Bangali community, mainly Muslim. The Labour candidate Oona King was beaten by George Galloway flying his rebel party flag against Tony Blair. He had been expelled from the Labour party due to his revolt against Blair on his Iraq policy.

The misfortune of Blair bears close resemblance with John Kerry, the Democrat candidate in last years US Presidential election against George Bush. The campaign had become totally centred on Iraq and Kerry was unable to take a clear stand on the issue. Indeed, the misadventure in Iraq by President Bush has come to haunt some of his allies like former Spanish Prime Minister Maria Aznar, who was ousted from office because of the tide flowing in the country against war in Iraq. That has been the case in Poland and also Italy, where Prime Minister Berlusconi appears to face mounting difficulties because of troops in Iraq.

In all these events there is a clear pattern. If some governments are unwilling or unable to face the fact that sending troops into Iraq, without any reason whatsoever, was a huge mistake, the people throughout the world have condemned this misadventure.

The argument has finally come down that it was worth getting thousands killed and Iraq virtually turned into rubble in order to rid the country of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Pathetic attempts are continuing to build something out of the devastation caused in Iraq. What a price to pay!

The commentators appear unanimous that Tony Blair has achieved a pyrrhic victory and is unlikely to last the full term in office. It is a sad end of a political personality, who has dominated the political scene in Britain and beyond. And he was celebrating his 52nd birthday on the day of his electoral victory! Yet the dilemma that Tony Blair has faced is much bigger than him. It has to do with the entire history of Anglo-American relationship that has been built since the birth of America out of the womb of Great Britain.

Arshad-uz Zaman is a former Ambassador and Acting Secretary General, OIC.