What becomes of Corbynism following the abdication of Jeremy Corbyn?

Jeremy Corbyn’s endless fence-sitting and triangulating should have come as no surprise. Despite the window dressing of “principles”, there is an important sense in which Corbyn never actually knew what he believed. Sure he would align himself with one view or another, stand alongside this or that group, campaign for X, Y or Z, and protest about this and that. But none of it adds up to a coherent political view.

The vitiating shallowness of this pick-and-mix approach creates obvious tensions in much of Corbyn’s positioning. His support for various middle eastern groups and his inability to tackle anti-Semitism are one example. His endless Brexit vacillation is another.

But it is in Corbyn’s view of democracy where the incoherence is most starkly drawn. Anyone can say the word “democracy”. But, for Corbyn, it came to signify the things of which he approves. In fairness, he is no worse in this respect than his Tory opponents. The point entirely lost on his disciples is that he is no better either.

This was shown up by the 2016 referendum. Corbyn claimed to have campaigned to remain, yet on the morning of the result he called for the immediate triggering of Article 50 on grounds of “democracy”.

One might have expected that Corbyn’s principles would have compelled him to question the result. Instead, he proclaimed that the will of the people must be respected (no matter how manipulated and distorted that will was). This move aligned him with the extreme right in celebrating the faux-democratic authority of the referendum. It also tacitly accepted the austerity-excusing line that Britain would have prospered under Tory rule were it not for the EU.

On this warped logic one wonders what grounds Corbynism could give for objecting to anything the democratically-elected Tory government decides to do. After all, the people have decided. Their decision must be respected. Except that it has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with The Word. Democracy is whatever suits Corbynism’s purpose at the time.

It is because Corbynism cannot bear critical scrutiny that it cannot be seen to fail on its own terms. The fault must be anything but Corbynism. Excuses must be sought and scapegoats identified. In the recent election, Corbyn supporters picked Brexit to blame for electoral failure when most research gives Corbyn himself full credit for Labour’s abysmal performance.

For supporters, accepting failure would be to accept a loss of “purity” of the Corbyn project (as would the forming of alliances and compromise). But it does indicate that a mature left-wing cohort should have rejected the illusions of Corbynism much earlier. Corbyn could have been seen as a ladder, which the legions of neophyte members could climb to reach a higher plane of left-wing political understanding. The ladder should then have been kicked away. Corbyn was, to his credit, a means of access for those new members. Their mistake was to see him as an end in himself; as the messiah rather than a John the Baptist. Thus Corbyn became the Word, the One Text through which all issues must be interpreted, the embodiment of left-wing virtue through whom the world could be understood. In short, irreplaceable.

Corbynism, like other cults, cannot question the authority or judgment of the one leader. It cannot accept the impurities of dissent or compromise. It deselects. It dismisses the opinion of those outside the cult with ad hominem well-poisoning. It presents false dilemmas (Not pure Corbynite? Then Blairite), blinds itself to alternatives through confirmation bias, constructing for itself a “will of the people” then appealing to that for justification of its actions.

As a cult, Corbynism has always primarily been about exercising control within the party, rather than winning control of the country. While Boris Johnson’s cynical myths (The People’s Government) are for external consumption, the myths of Corbynism are entirely focused inward to facilitate control of the membership. At its centre is a narcissistic leader who surrounds himself with sycophants; who preaches reaching out, but reserves it only for his disciples; who espouses a kinder politics while allowing thugs to do his dirty work; who puts his own image above the party and above the welfare of the public he claims to serve; who offers the world on an impossible ticket; a man whose ignorance of his limitations is immune to change; whose conceit is to preserve the purity of his ideas rather than have them sullied in the battles of persuasion, or have them tested against reality; a leader who is willing to sacrifice electoral success on the altar of ideology; a Kiplingesque caricature, who steadfastly keeps his head while all about him are losing their seats.

All of which presents difficulties for the succession. The cult of Corbynism sees all the virtues of the left — its concern for equality, justice, rights and freedom — as originating from, and being uniquely embodied in, Jeremy Corbyn. His followers fear that if he goes then so does the left-wing agenda.

So can Corbynism survive the passing of Corbyn? It will live on — but as an argument. The essence of Corbynism is not a left-wing philosophy, but a collection of contradictions and delusions married to a defensive, inward-looking attitude, the aggressive rejection of dissent and a fanatical concern with party control. The result will be a period of prolonged sectarian struggle for the rights to Corbyn’s legacy.