Rejecting Respectability in Politics

The Makerfield Quandary

The Green Party is in a quandary over the Makerfield by-election. Andy Burnham (the left-of-Starmer candidate seeking to replace him as MP) is standing from Labour in the hope of becoming eligible to contest Keir Starmer's leadership of the Labour Party. Of course he is attempting to reclaim a narrative of being the leftist candidate, but his policies appear suspiciously similar to promises made by Starmer himself during the general election. Those who want to see leftist policies implemented aren't buying it: Starmer promised to end austerity and bring in welfare reform, and claimed to have fulfilled this promise with cuts to Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments. Burnham appears to be promising nationalisation of public services, but appears to be vacillating somewhat on the issue of proportional representation (PR). Having earlier suggested that it did not have the mandate of the people, he now seems to be committed to the idea. If he still seeks official approval in a general election mandate, however, it might suggest a snap election that would be a terrible idea for Labour and anyone seeking to stop Reform. Whether or not the Labour government will implement it this term remains to be seen; a majority of Labour members are in favour of it, and a number of MPs have indicated support as well, signing up to the corresponding amendment in the Representation of the People Bill. Andy Burnham is also very likely to win a leadership contest within Labour, should he be elected in the Makerfield by-election: he is a favourite among the Labour membership for the role.

The Greens have never so far fared well in a general election, but appear to have surged on people's radar as a viable political party since Zack Polanski became its leader. Voting intention polls now show the Greens being at par with Labour, Conservatives, and Lib Dems on the number of people intending to vote for them. However, Greens have often fared badly in constituencies that have even numbers of progressive and conservative voters; the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system punishes split votes, so many people opt to vote for the bigger party (even if they would rather vote for the smaller one with the more aligned policies) to prevent the opposing side from winning. A move to proportional representation would benefit the Greens, and with the current state of voting intentions, likely benefit every other party as well. Labour ensures that they still benefit from votes for Labour in Reform-heavy constituencies; Greens (and the Liberal Democrats) win back voters who would otherwise (yet unsuccessfully) vote for Labour to keep Reform out; Reform wins the voters from cities that traditionally vote left while also not losing to splits like Restore Britain; and even the Conservatives, the traditional winners under the FPTP system, will regain votes in constituencies lost to Reform.

For the Green Party, this poses a strategic dilemma. Progressives across the board have a joint agenda in keeping Reform out of power. Proportional representation is likely one of the best ways of doing this; without PR, the most likely outcome of the next general election will be a Reform-Tory coalition. With PR, there is a good chance of a progressive coalition between Labour, Lib-Dems, and Greens forming a majority. If the Greens contest Makerfield, they risk taking votes away from Burnham and pushing a Reform win, preventing Burnham from contesting Labour leadership. Many have suggested that the Greens ought to explicitly make a deal with Labour and offer to stand down in Makerfield if Burnham promises to bring PR onto the government's agenda. The polls so far indicate a very narrow lead for Labour in the by-election, and even a small number of votes could tip the scales either way. The Greens (and indeed, as they have noted, the Liberal Democrats as well) have an interest in standing down for such a promise and asking those that would have voted for them to go with Labour as a strategic choice. Members of both the Greens and the Lib Dems have suggested doing exactly this, as a way of coordinating against the greater evil of allowing Reform to take the seat by splitting the left vote. Others have pushed back against this.

One of the suggested reasons for the Greens to stand aside is that the Green Party (and the left in general) is often criticised for being impractical. Making such a deal would demonstrate that we are not: we are willing to understand reality and work with it; we can strategically work with others who share an ultimate goal, and make practical choices that will help us in the long run. Making such a deal demonstrates conclusively that we care about our policies and our goals and that we are not ideological purists. The Greens are already running a scaled-back campaign in Makerfield as a result. The narrative problem, however, is not a real one. I don't mean to say that the left and the Greens are not criticised in mainstream narratives for being either impractical or purist; that is very likely to be the case. What I do mean is that the idea that we need to or can fight back against this narrative is incorrect. Doing so is instead a concession given to those in power and those who want to maintain the status quo that the engagement will be on their terms.

Respectability Politics

Marginalised groups are familiar with respectability politics. It involves oppressed groups/people assimilating into the cultures and expectations of the privileged classes as a strategic tool to gain acceptance within society. Doing so often grants the benefit of being integrated into mainstream culture and institutions, often including gaining some semblance of power within society. However, it also comes with costs. It places the person assimilating at risk of being rejected, expelled, or losing all their status and power should their assimilation or "respectability" ever slip. It takes a psychological toll to adopt and internalise a framework that is built on one's own inherent inferiority, as this is always the case with any form of systemic oppression. For gendered others in a patriarchy, respectability politics may be eschewing 'militant' feminisms or feminism altogether while performing feminine docility, or alternatively, performing competitiveness for workplace advancement. For non-white groups, it can look like accepting one's own past as 'barbaric' while being grateful to the colonising west for their 'civilising' influence. Caste reinforces assimilation through Sanskritisation, requiring oppressed castes to accept Brahminism as morally virtuous. For queer people of all stripes, it is subjecting oneself to heteronormative marriage and nuclear families (complete with gendered roles within them) as the ultimate goal. For disabled people, it may be accepting that work is what makes one valuable and thereby aspiring to have a career, downplaying any support needed while apologising for our bodies and needs, internalising the idea that our very presence is an inconvenience to others.

Many of us who have attempted one or another form of attaining respectability from the margins have learnt the hard way that it is always a losing battle. Respectability is predicated on accepting the hierarchical premises as fundamentally true; one accepts the inherent and most importantly, unchanging nature of one's own inferiority. Those are aways the terms. Once this is done, no amount of acceptance granted to the oppressed person will ever actually grant equity. In seeking to break the glass ceiling, women are required to perform competitiveness, thus accepting the terms that competition—a masculine coded trait in society today—as being more valuable than cooperation (the corresponding feminine-coded trait). If, on the other hand, a woman performs respectability by eschewing a career and glorifying feminine domesticity, doing so necessarily accepts the premise of women being "biologically wired" for domesticity. That is the nature of respectability: it hinges on accepting the existence and terms of hierarchy that society currently operates on. This ensures that equality will never be attained while respectability within such a hierarchy is the goal of those oppressed by it. As this example shows, it is always double-sided: one may play into the hierarchy by doing dramatically opposite acts. These performances are double-binds for marginalised people, in that we are denied actual inclusion and equality regardless of whether or not we perform respectability. However, they are also single-binds for the privileged: the moment we cease to perform any of these things as members of the privileged group, we lose our respectability among our privileged peers. Thus, men that perform femininity are often denied respect and dignity on that account (the male nanny or nurse is often played as a joke, for example).

Marginalised people understand that power is not a rational force, instead it is a rationalising force. Power is used to maintain hierarchies over oppressed groups and any reason given for such oppression or for the dismissal of any objections raised by the oppressed is a rationalisation of power's hold on the hierarchy rather than a justification or causal explanation of it. Ergo, it is not that men are better at competition, nor that competition is better than cooperation, it is that men hold power in patriarchal societies. It is not that the West is the origin of democracy, or that capitalist democracy is the best organising form of society, it is that the West holds power and gets to make and enforce these claims as truth. It is not that trans women are threats to cis women's safety, it is that cis women have power qua cis people over trans people, and get to enforce their othering of trans folk through rationalisations of threats to safety. That is why they will claim both that trans women are socialised as men, while at the same time objecting to children transitioning; or object to both the inclusion of trans women in women's sports on account of the advantages of male puberty while simultaneously prevent trans folk from opting out of a dysphoric puberty by banning puberty blockers for trans children. Notice that transphobic claims like these also flit between biological essentialism and gender being a construct as the situation demands. Likewise, disabled people are treated as worthless and not contributing to society if we seek social security, while also being subject to bias in hiring when seeking jobs. These contradictory acts have a common underlying cause: the desire to maintain power and exclusion. The key point to remember here is that nothing an oppressed person does will ever be acceptable as proof of equal dignity to the person wanting to maintain power. Taking the rationalisations given by those in power as being honest reasons for our exclusion/oppression is a mistake; attempting to respond or address them in our behaviour is a waste of our time. What we need to do instead is to reject such terms of engagement because we did not have a say in them to begin with.

Respectability in Politics

The problems of respectability politics also show up in political organising but are not often understood as such. Discussions around the Makerfield by-election are emblematic of this: for the Greens, discussions (particularly those suggesting standing down) often revolve around how the mainstream media and people who aren't already Green supporters view the Green Party: fear of being blamed for splitting the vote and allowing Reform to win, of being seen as unreasonable by putting party before country, or by simply ignoring reality and not being practical about the very real and practical business of politics. This is not really about whether or not we should choose to contest Makerfield, this is about some of our reasoning behind suggesting either course of action. Shifting the perspective to understanding that the Greens do not currently have power, and that leftist policies and ideologies are systematically derided and dismissed in mainstream society, we can come to understand these as ways of performing respectability within politics. The terms of engagement set for us include: that leftists do not offer practical solutions to the problems of the world, that capitalism is a given and is beneficial for society, that before we attack capitalism we must acknowledge the benefits it brings (or have a fully fleshed-out and functioning alternative before posing any challenge, or claiming that alternatives do not exist), or that because leftists are a minority we must expect to remain so. These terms reinforce the idea that capitalism is the 'natural' order of things, and when we engage with others on these terms, we implicitly accept that premise.

Instead, it might do us and the world a lot of good to consider what rejecting these terms could look like. It's not easy; just as it is hard for someone conditioned into systemic oppression to break out of the psychological restrictions imposed on us to imagine different worlds, it might actually be hard for many leftists to break out of the mould of being on the defensive against capitalist propaganda. To begin small, rejecting the terms of engagement could look like operating on the fact that leftist policies are, in fact, very practical: there is no actual solution to the current polycrisis offered from the centre/right. The Greens actively seek wealth taxes to address inequality, investing heavily in clean and renewable sources of energy, and expanding the repertoire of public services. These are far from impractical, they are the only way of actually addressing many of the problems that currently plague our society. We already know that capitalism has been detrimental to humanity in many ways, being the form of economy tied to global colonisation, the slave trade, the climate crisis, and every market bubble and recession that follows its crash. It is most certainly not the 'natural' order of things, being at most a few hundred years old compared to the couple hundred thousands of years that modern humans have existed. But beyond simply refuting these claims, we can actually consider that a system does not need proof of concept to be tried; certainly late-stage capitalism and its crises were not envisaged by any of the original free-marketeers. Simply, capitalism is not working, continuing with it will destroy vast numbers of beings, ecosystems, and people and it is on us to try something different to prevent that outcome. Taking it even further: we might want to consider ways of building community resilience against the demands of capitalist economies; rejecting the terms of engagement in selling our labour being the means by which we are allowed to exist. This encompasses a vast number of ideological stances and actions, from squatters' rights to universal basic services.

On the question of Makerfield, rejecting the terms of engagement means not concerning ourselves with appearances of rationality or responsibility, but actually being responsible. Labour has, through the local elections, set the terms of the engagement as the contest being one of "labour or Reform", dismissing the Greens as being untested and unready to lead. This has not changed for the Makerfield by-election: Labour members are pushing the Greens to stand down to keep Reform out. The implicit terms of engagement are that the Greens must accept the reality of not being a 'big' party, despite the contest being against Reform (rather than the Conservatives): Reform is given legitimacy in these narratives despite being similar to the Greens in being hitherto smaller and never having been in government. The Conservative Party is also given legitimacy: Labour is not asking Conservatives not to contest, despite them being more ideologically closer to the current Labour government than the Greens. The reality is instead that Reform, Labour and the Greens all have a similar number of members (a quarter million each) at the time of writing. The double-bind on the Greens as a party without power is that if we choose to contest Makerfield, we will be painted as being unreasonable, impractical and purist; if we choose to back out, we will be portrayed as weak, unwilling to stand up for our convictions and unprepared to lead, and treated as a pressure group.

Rejecting the terms of engagement is to understand that if Reform wins, it will be because their candidate and/or policies are more appealing to the voters, not because the Greens or anyone else took votes away from Labour. It is recognising the reality that we need to fight much more than a by-election to actually fight fascism, because it is not just the leaders who want those policies, even if they are the ones to disproportionately benefit from them. As voting intention for Parliament currently stands, Reform has the highest percentage of any party, at nearly one-fourth of all voters. Fighting this requires us to actually contend with the reality that a large chunk of the British population wants what Reform is offering, instead of chalking it up to and dismissing it as people being brainwashed by propaganda. Even if it is brainwashing by propaganda, how does that change the reality that the people so brainwashed believe what they do? It makes no difference to the outcome. Rejecting the terms of engagement is recognising that Andy Burnham is one person, and even if he does become MP and Prime Minister, he has not actually committed to implementing proportional representation. Labour has not been in the business of making deals with the Greens on implementation of progressive policies, they are in the business of being the party in power. Even if Andy Burnham loses to Reform, proportional representation has gained popular support. It will be in Labour's interests to implement it, regardless of who steers the ship. Rejecting the terms doesn't mean either contesting or not contesting Makerfield for the Greens, it means choosing whatever course of action best brings us closer to what we want to achieve regardless of how that is viewed by those who will always deride us. Whatever the Greens do or don't do in Makerfield, the issue of proportional representation is still on the table for Labour to consider, and the Greens to campaign.