Can Corbynism outlive Corbyn?

Corbynism is in trouble. The latest attacks on the Labour leader – most of them related to his party’s handling of antisemitism complaints – seem to have dented his personal approval ratings, which are languishing at around 20%. The formation of The Independent Group has also undermined his authority by enabling Blairite MPs to dictate party policy. (We can safely assume that Corbyn’s recent softening on a second referendum was precipitated by the threat of more defections to TIG.) Now, with the two main parties polling equally in the run up to a series of decisive Brexit votes, any tactical missteps could imperil the Corbyn project.

But Corbynism has been in trouble since its inception, and its central figure is unlikely to be forced out by the current media firestorm. Despite his apparent weakness, Corbyn is accustomed to weathering PLP criticism, his policies remain popular with the general public, and his formidable grassroots supporters would allow him to trounce any challenger in a leadership election. Furthermore, the absence of a natural successor means that Corbyn’s resignation could deal a death blow to the entire Labour left – a prospect which his allies are determined to avoid, even if that involves keeping the present leader past his sell-by date.

So Corbyn will stay put for the time being. But his embattled position should cause us to reflect on the character of Labour’s leftward turn, and ask whether its socialist bloc can maintain their dominance after Corbyn’s departure (whenever that may be).

Patently, Corbyn was not elected because of his personal qualities: he is not particularly eloquent nor outwardly impressive. He was elected because masses of people were fed up with the austerity-lite, xenophobia-lite platform on which Ed Miliband ran. In 2015, Labour members – along with the workers and students who joined the party in their thousands – were offered a genuine alternative to Tory policies, and they took it. Corbyn may not have a dazzling media presence, but the appeal of his principles was undeniable.

However, when it came time to fight the last general election, Labour began to craft a populist image of its earnest, unpolished, straight-talking leader. Campaign ads cast him as a loveable grandfatherly figure, turning his lack of savviness into a virtue, and marking its distinction from both the slick-but-hollow New Labour brand and the robotic managerialism of Theresa May. While Labour’s manifesto pledges galvanised people across the country, the construction of its premier as a maverick and an outsider was a crucial factor in creating excitement around this left programme – excitement clearly registered by the election result.

The reinvention of Corbyn as a beloved personality was thus a political strength. It allowed voters to invest their faith in the leader (as opposed to the fractured and chaotic party), and view him as a vehicle through which previously unthinkable economic change could be achieved. In this sense, Corbynism bears some resemblance to Chavismo – a movement which, as political scientist George Ciccariello-Maher has written, reinvigorated democracy by forging a direct connection between ‘the people’ and ‘the leader’. The paradox is that, by drawing previously disenfranchised sectors of society back into public life, this hierarchical leader-follower relationship gives way to radical, horizontal forms of political cooperation. So when critics of Corbynism decry it as a cult of personality, our response should be to accept wholeheartedly that description. If an enchanting personality prompts ordinary people to become politically engaged – to fight for their interests as equal, participating members of a demos – then this should be welcomed, not lamented.

Yet, given the catastrophic decline of Chavismo since the death of its eponymous president, it is clear that this populist vision of leadership can have serious pitfalls. The problem arises when faith in the leader ceases to be a means of engendering democratic participation, and starts to be a stand-in for it. If this happens, the hierarchical structure of the Labour Party could undermine the potential for a mass movement from below. Its left populist strategy could prioritise short-lived devotion to a figurehead over more durable forms of community organisation.

So if Corbynism is to outlast Corbyn, its followers must have the agency to envision alternatives to unbridled capitalism, instead of simply assenting to those passed down by policy advisors. Their activism should not be restricted to supporting a specific faction of the PLP; it should involve holding the PLP accountable to its progressive base, and extending political action outside parliament itself. Corbyn was necessary to create these radical possibilities; the task of the left to render him irrelevant to their realisation.