Anthony Giddens argues that ‘class is no longer the driving force in politics’ and that the ‘old divisions of left and right are now meaningless’. However Giddens argument is ‘ideological’. ‘It is based on the premise that the world in which we live is in a constant state of flux in terms of technology and globalisation, and that a new innovative and powerful form of politics is completely vital’. (Alex Callinicus, 2001) Giddens suggests that ‘there are no borders that can not be transgressed in order to find the solutions deemed necessary for the problems facing the contemporary period’. He believes that the politics of left and right should be interchangeable and no barriers to entry must exist between left and right if politics is to be prosperous.
However few advocates of the Third Way would disagree with the fact that in order to achieve there goals there are some major obstacles involved, such as the problem of ‘undeveloped civil societies which can lead to undemocratic regimes’, and the positive need for all democratic leaders to announce a global war on poverty. Nevertheless Blair still has hope in the Asian ‘Tiger’ economies that have shown great resolve. ‘Their exemplified advances have shown that the global economy has great potential’ (Tony Blair, 1998). Furthermore the neo-liberal use of the so-called globalisation argument is to a high degree ‘ideological’, ‘mainly designed to de-legitimise labour demands, macroeconomics and the claim of all political responsibility for the outcome of the economy’. (Collin Hay, 1999) Thus it is one of the crucial differences between neo-liberal and social democratic politics how the term globalisation is defined and which consequences are derived from it.
Tony Blair states in his explanation of the Third Way: ‘Just as economic and social change were critical to sweeping the right to power, so they were critical to it’s undoing’. The challenge for the Third Way is to ‘engage fully with the implications of the change’. The changes he identifies concern global markets and culture, technological advance and information industries. (Collin Hay 1999) The Third Way seeks to promote global developments at both the local and national level. Blair and Giddens have suggested that ‘the advancement of global markets and technologies, enhance the ideals of community, locally, nationally, and globally’. With this there will come a new political agenda, which is founded, on mutual responsibility across the globe. ‘Our aims will have far reaching consequences in terms of opportunities for people and businesses through the achievement of an open world and an open economy’. (Tony Blair, 1999) However, the Third Way’s success, they claim will rest on a ‘strong mutual feeling of certain values through a global commitment to help those affected by environment, world debt and genocide’. According to their plans, globalisation is meant to serve as ‘a great engine of economic growth and a spurring innovation’, making capital and labour much more productive than when they were under protectionism. (David Halpern, 2000)
The Third Way proposes the ‘restructuring of some key parts of the welfare state’. There are changes within the society, which make appropriate changes in welfare state structures unavoidable. The most consequential ones are ‘the level of medical technology that is expanding constantly which will result in unavoidable consequence, such as the costs of health-care systems’. (Robert Lee, 1998) ‘A system which entitles each individual to the full scale of medical treatment as indicated by his diseases will constantly raise the portion of income spent for health, which seems unaffordable already in the not so long run.’ (Robert Lee, 1998) Also ‘the ratio of working-age population to old-age population is constantly decreasing’. It has been argued that this makes new formulas for a ‘sustainable general pension system’ mandatory. And finally ‘in some welfare states unemployment insurance has created a particular unemployment trap by taxing 100 per cent or more of low-wage income away’. (Robert Lee, 1998) New ways of relating the welfare system and the labour market are needed. Even though the welfare state is badly in need of reform this should be done in such a manner as to preserve the basic objectives for which it has been invented. The neo-liberal remedy is straightforward, ‘reduce the welfare state and resign vis-à-vis the power and the wisdom of the market’. This will, so the neo-liberals propose ‘immediately ease the burden on public budgets and sooner or later adapt workers expectations and attitudes to the hard facts of the labour market’. Most Neo-liberal thinkers consider the market both an ‘unparalleled mechanism of rational decision-making’ and ‘a ‘basic value’, the social costs of such a strategy are neglected in theory and tolerated in practice. (Jerry Z Muller, 2003)
Some hold that Third Way thinking is considered right by its advocates because ‘it would be irresponsible and stupid to take refuge in merely defending the traditional welfare state while attacking neo-liberal irresponsibility’. They suggest that ‘re-engineering the old welfare state structures is inevitable, but only insofar as this helps to make it sustainable’. This holds true for all the classical pillars of the welfare state. In respect to old age pension, more scope for choice is needed. ‘The individual should decide how much of his income he would like to save now in order to be able to spend it later, but a bottom line, which guarantees a dignified life after retirement, should be maintained’. (Collin Hey, 1999) ‘Unemployment benefits should be conditioned on the acceptance of job offers. Besides, they should be faded out in such a way as to leave a reasonable increase in income for those who pick up low-wage jobs’. All this can and must be done if the Third Way is to represent a new form of politics. ‘Pragmatism, creativity and a spirit of innovation’ are definitly required (Tony Blair, 2000).
The message of the Third Way is however a renewal of the idea that each citizen is entitled to a dignified standard of living when all his own efforts have failed. ‘The guarantee of a decent life is not dependent on economic merit but a human right’. It might be more necessary than before that the individual can prove that he has undertaken everything possible to earn his own living. In the case of failure ‘the individual has a right to social solidarity and he has a right that the blame for market failures are not put on his shoulders alone, so that in addition to poverty and insecurity he would be stigmatised with failure, remorse and blame.’ (David Mikosz, **) For all these reasons the Third Way could prove to be a new form o politics i.e. ‘a meaningful concept for the renewal of social democracy only to the degree to which it offers meaningful welfare state reforms without discarding the guarantee of social security’. Otherwise it would not only damage the public identity of social democracy and deny its confession of basic values, but also contribute to social disintegration. Therefore, a ‘Third Way project must conform by a concept not just of ‘opportunities for all’, but of social justice, which implies the guarantee of a minimum standard of material well being’. Of course, such a guarantee implies ‘the individual's obligation to seize every opportunity offered to him by the markets or the society to make his own living’. (Anthony Giddens, 1998) Thus, employability, may be one of the useful objectives for welfare state reform, but not the sufficient condition for a renewed social democratic project as long as there are not enough jobs available for everybody.
In conclusion I shall prefer to sit on the fence and watch the Third Way unravel itself. For as I have suggested the Third Way certainly could be interpreted as a unique form of modern politics. However the Third Way will be interpreted differently by each European government. Thus in order for the Third Way to be successful as truly new form of politics that really can transgress the line between left and right it must be introduced with certain structural elements. Firstly there is a need for ‘moral principles and priorities’. Secondly there is a need for ‘a more detailed, clear ideology that relates more to the real world’ and thirdly ‘these principles need to be clear, with policies and practices on how to change current policies to Third Way policies’. (David Halpern **)
** _ Unknown Date
Bibliography
Blair, Tony: The New Labour Manifesto, 2004
Available from - http://www.labour.org.uk/generalelectionmanifesto/
Callinicus, Alex: Against the Third Way, 2001, Cambridge, Blackwell Publishers
Giddens, Anthony: The Third Way and its Critics, 1998, Cambridge, Blackwell Publishers
Halpern, David and Mikosz, David (Editors): Third Way debate summary
Available from - www.netnexus.org/library/papers/3way.html
Hay, Collin: The Political Economy of New Labour, 1999, Manchester, Manchester University Press
Lee, Robert: Social Capital, the economy and the third way, New Statesman, 8th May 1998,
The Political Quarterly Publishing Co.Ltd
Muller, Jerry Z. The Mind and the Market (Capitalism in Modern European Thought) 2003, Anchor Books
Perryman, Mark and Coddington, Anne: The Modernists Dilemma, 1998, London, Lawrance and Wishart Ltd.
Ryan, Alan: Britain and the Third Way, 1999, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Wolff, Jonathan and Rosen, Michael, Political Thought: 1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Unknown Author: In a speech of the Third Way, 22nd May1998,
Available from - http://www.newstatesman.com
