The Berry | Whatever your political colours

[James Sharpe]
When people think of the British Nationalist Party, they think ‘rightwing’. Whenever the BNP is mentioned on the television or in a newspaper, it is inevitably accompanied by the words “the far-right party”. Because the BNP calls itself a nationalist party, the media, instead of looking into the substance of BNP policy, have automatically defined it as rightwing.

However, this is misleading: the term “rightwing” is loaded with so many contradictory political positions and ideas that it is inaccurate to characterise the party in this way. If anything, the example of the BNP should demonstrate to us that it is time to move on from the old left/right dichotomy in favour of a new means of political division. The privilege we give to labels like left- and rightwing rather than to definitions means that many groups are wrongly classified, and the labels themselves become meaningless and redundant.

Focusing solely on economics, we all know that free markets are a rightwing ideal, while protectionism is of the left. By this definition, the BNP is avowedly leftwing. It adheres to a socialist economic policy of nationalising state industries, full employment for British citizens, and significant wealth redistribution. These are all positions commonly believed to be on the left. And, more interestingly, they all have a nationalistic flavour. Indeed, the nature of free market economics is such that, logically, this economic system is most compatible with internationalism, a political ideology monopolised by the left.

So to what extent is the BNP actually rightwing socially? The intellectual foundations of free market economics is liberty, in the (albeit simplistic) sense that one should be able to do anything as long as it does not cause harm to another person. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that someone who is truly rightwing will be as against social conservatism as anyone who, on such social issues, defines themselves as leftwing.

It is undeniable that the BNP wishes to introduce legislation to discriminate against non-Britons, homosexuals, and, to a lesser extent, women. But, in the same way, it is those who define themselves as leftwing who wish to introduce similar discriminatory laws, even though this discrimination is prefixed with the term “positive”. Regardless of motive, the results of such legislation are the same in both cases: discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, or gender. As such, on social issues, by this principle, it is more accurate to describe the BNP as a party of the left.

Of course, some may argue that the motive behind policy is a significant factor in placing a party along the political spectrum. But, if this were true, and the BNP were placed firmly on the right, it would mean that anyone with political motives non-racist, non-chauvinistic, and non-prudish would have to be leftwing, regardless of policy political views. This would mean that something like libertarianism would have to be put dead centre. This will obviously not do.

This is not an attempt to demonstrate that the BNP is actually leftwing rather than rightwing, but to demonstrate the problem of using such labels. Ultimately, the ideology of the BNP is so exceptional that it has no place on the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the spectrum still deals with a range of rational political positions, as well as those developed on the basis of bigotry alone. This is highly problematic.

After all, why do we include fascism and communism on the same spectrum? They were both collectivist and totalitarian, and yet are labelled as polar opposites. The description of such ideologies as left or right does not tell us anything about the substance of fascism and communism; it merely serves to discredit alternative legitimate political positions like socialism and libertarianism that are described using the same language.

Indeed, by placing ideologies like those expressed by the BNP anywhere on such a spectrum is to do nothing other than to make racism seem to be a legitimate political position. Racism is neither of the left nor of the right: it is just wrong.

Unfortunately, the left/right dichotomy has such a hold over our political discourse that it is almost impossible to abandon it. But abandon it we must. Otherwise, we will remain enslaved to the emptiness of the language employed in the political spectrum. People often now use the term “rightwing” and “leftwing” to define anything other than what they actually mean in terms of rational political choices. It is time for definitions rather than words to reassert themselves.