Democracy 2024: why most left-wing parties were defeated

2 days ago10 min read

Updated: 16 hours ago

By Karl Singarvelan Raha

Karl is a humanist and a political enthusiast, describing himself as a staunch Left-Libertarian. During his time in the UK, he was a party member of the Green Party and an active participant in the Marxist Society. In India, he writes for the English magazine Modern Rationalist. He’s disheartened by the consistent failures of left-wing parties globally but he strongly believes that both the left and right must have equal participation in a democracy. In this article, he explores the root causes of the decline of left-wing parties worldwide.

Time Magazine referred to 2024 as “the year of elections”. As many as 70 countries held elections and most major countries witnessed the rise of right-wing and far-right parties, while left-wing parties experienced substantial decline, with the exceptions of the UK and Sri Lanka. On the question of land, our main theme this month, I would argue that left-wing parties have been negligent in addressing issues related to land and housing. In my Telugu radio show, I remarked, “The left has left the ground”, meaning that left-wing parties are trapped in dogma and are failing to respond effectively to right-wing policies rooted in concerns about ethnicity, immigration, and religious sentiments, especially in Asian countries.

“They came from all quarters. Union, non-union, African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Arab American, Muslim American, we had everybody, and it was beautiful.” Donald J. Trump, 47th President of the US

Let’s consider the US election. Kamala Harris was decisively defeated, failing to win any of the seven swing states. According to an electoral map analysis by The New York Times, there was a surprising shift in voting behaviour. Even in traditionally strong Democratic states such as California and New York, there was significant growth in support for Donald Trump, which came as a shock to the Democratic Party. In his victory speech, Trump said “They came from all quarters. Union, non-union, African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Arab American, Muslim American, we had everybody, and it was beautiful. It was a historic realignment. Uniting citizens of all backgrounds around a common core of common sense. You know, we're the party of common sense.” Based on voting patterns, it’s clear that a significant number of people have shifted towards the right, with even the so-called traditional voter base starting to lean in that direction. Numerous issues are contributing to the repeated failures of leftist parties, further weakening their position.

Immigration

Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative opposition in Canada (Image: Wikipedia public domain)

Mass immigration was a pressing issue in many elections in 2024. From a left-wing perspective, opposition to mass immigration can be seen as an expression of racism and xenophobia, leading to anti-immigration riots as in the UK in the summer of 2024 – widely blamed on far-right misinformation and agitation. However, there can be genuine issues with mass immigration, such as increasing pressure on housing and health services, downward pressure on wages in certain sectors, a sense that cultural cohesion is breaking down, and increasing crime according to some European data. The People’s Party of Canada claims that 67% of Canadians believe that immigration has spiralled out of control and it has promised to reduce immigration levels. Owing to Justin Trudeau’s mismanagement of immigration to Canada, opinion polls predict a massive failure for his Liberal Party at the next election (due as early as spring 2025) and gains for Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party. Trudeau recently announced his resignation after nine years in office, citing internal party challenges and declining popularity.

During the 2024 UK election, the radical right, anti-immigration party Reform UK led by Nigel Farage secured approximately four million votes, placing it third in vote share. The party managed to take a significant portion of the Conservative vote share and even gained seats from them. Data from the YouGov polling organisation indicated that there was only a 9% gap in vote share between the Conservatives and Reform UK. The party posed a tough challenge to the Conservatives, particularly among men, families in social housing, individuals aged 25-49, and the working class. As a political enthusiast, I would say that if this trend continues, Reform UK could become the main opposition party in the next election and strengthen its voter base in the coming years.

Disunity of left-wing parties

From India to the United States, left-wing parties and alliances are often characterized by disunity. A recent article in The Hill (an American news outlet providing coverage of Capitol Hill, Congress and the federal government) highlighted the differences among several Democratic Congress members who have subtly expressed their dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party. It also noted that the Democratic Party is the only party experiencing such conflicts, with members clashing over the party’s strategy following election cycles. This was also one of the reasons Kamala Harris was unable to win, because internal politics and the third-party split of votes led to losses in Wisconsin, Michigan and other states. Notable third-party candidates included Jill Stein (Green Party), Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party), and Cornel West (Independent). I believe that a third party is not a viable solution, as their last-recorded significant success was under Theodore Roosevelt, the former US President who shifted from the Republican Party to the Progressive Party in 1912. Surprisingly, in the 2024 presidential election, four swing states that Trump had won in the 2020 saw their Senate seats shift from Republican to Democrat control. Split voting and internal politics played a significant role.

In the 2024 Indian election, left-wing parties were projected to face a complete wipe-out, with exit polls predicting that the ruling Hindu-nationalist BJP would win more than 400 out of 543 seats. The BJP and the Prime Minister were accused of spreading misinformation about Muslims and leftists, claiming they would loot the properties of Hindus. Additionally, a buzz was created suggesting that the BJP might amend the Constitution to align it with their Hindutva agenda. The election results were shocking, as the opposition INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance) trailed the BJP by only 60 seats, with the BJP securing 294 seats. This outcome was surprising, but the INDIA alliance and its leading party, the Indian National Congress (INC), have long been known for internal disputes dating back to 1915. These disputes have led to at least fifty breakaways, with some factions finding success as regional players and others either merging with the BJP or re-joining the INC. Even in these elections, the INDIA alliance performed significantly better than in past disastrous outings. However, internal disputes persisted. Alliance partners directly competed against each other in some states, and the prime ministerial race was highly contentious among the alliance members. These internal conflicts likely prevented the alliance from capitalizing on the severe anti-incumbency against the BJP, ultimately costing them victory.

Poor election strategy

In this section I will discuss two elections: the US election and the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections in India, the state where the financial capital, Mumbai, is located. In both instances, left-leaning parties faced significant setbacks. A parallel can be drawn between the Democrats in the US and the INDIA alliance in India. While both performed strongly in recent midterm and Lok Sabha elections, they struggled respectively in presidential and legislative elections, highlighting challenges for left-wing parties in achieving broader electoral success. Sources indicate that a flawed campaign strategy was the primary reason for their failure, as their approach was more person-centred rather than policy-focused. For example, in the US, Kamala Harris concentrated more on criticising her rival Donald Trump than outlining the policies she would implement as President. Although Trump played the anti-immigrant card, he also emphasized issues such as the economy, unemployment, and inflation. As my friend Charlotte Lethbridge, a writer and history graduate, noted: “Trump had silent voters who didn’t openly express their support for fear of being labelled as racists or sexists. However, they voted based on economic concerns.” According to YouGov, a significant number of voters who previously supported the Democrats have shifted their allegiance to the Republicans, largely driven by economic concerns.

A similar situation occurred in Maharashtra, where the INDIA alliance focused its campaign on targeting multi-millionaire Gautam Adani, accusing him of supporting the BJP government and alleging that the government was shielding him from scrutiny over his failures. However, by making this their main agenda, the alliance overlooked provincial issues and the incumbent BJP government’s shortcomings, leading to a significant defeat in these elections. In contrast, in Jharkhand – an economically backward province in India – the INDIA alliance achieved victory because it focused its campaign on provincial issues rather than person-centred topics.

Nine years ago, Vikram Chandra, a prominent journalist at NDTV (an Indian English news channel), hosted a live show titled “Is There Any Future Left for the Left in India?”. He pointed out that the communists, in their resolutions, often use references such as “neoliberal”, “Cuba”, “Latin America”, “Bolivia,” and “Uruguay” rather than addressing practical concerns such as jobs and technology. This disconnect is a key reason for the decline in student membership in such parties, except in a few universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Similarly, according to a CNN editorial report, the Democratic Party’s manifesto (commonly referred to as the Democratic Party Platform) is outdated and focuses primarily on criticising Trump and his past mistakes, offering little scope for forward-looking policies or future initiatives.

The left’s failure to embrace transformational change and economic reform

Let me take you back to China in the early 1950s, a period marked by widespread poverty and underdevelopment. During this time, Mao Zedong emerged as a beacon of hope, promising transformative change. However, his leadership soon took a devastating turn. Mao's introduction of the Great Leap Forward – an ambitious policy aimed at rapidly industrializing the nation and boosting agricultural output – demanded that citizens meet unrealistic quotas for resources like iron and food. This policy led to catastrophic failures across multiple sectors. The consequences were dire: a massive famine ensued, resulting in the deaths of over 55 million people. Those who dared to oppose or criticize the policy faced brutal repression, with many being mercilessly silenced. The Great Leap Forward not only caused immense human suffering but left China deeply scarred, serving as a sombre reminder of the dangers of unchecked authority and poorly conceived policies. So, I pose this question to Maoists: Is this the leader you revere? A leader whose policies caused unimaginable suffering and led to the merciless deaths of millions?

In 1981, Hu Yaobang rose to prominence as the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, becoming a symbol of reform and modernization in China. However, while he held a significant leadership role, the real political control remained with Deng Xiaoping, the supreme leader of China at the time. Deng spearheaded a series of transformative economic reforms starting in the late 1970s. These reforms included opening up the country to free trade, liberalizing the banking system, decentralizing the economy, promoting individual profits, and fostering stronger connections with Western nations. These reforms transformed China into a superpower that now competes with the United States. This economic miracle was driven by a shift in the government’s political ideology, rather than sticking to a single approach. However, while China is not a democratic example, we cannot ignore the rising income inequality and the concentration of power in the hands of an elite.

The example of China could be relevant for the present time, as political parties on the left must reconsider their stance or offer an alternative approach to address burning issues. I’m not suggesting that these parties should completely shift from socialist to capitalist, but they can adapt to a social market model, as seen in Scandinavian countries. However, on major issues, left parties often provide either a lukewarm response, no response, or a response that is not even relevant.

Battling with misinformation

Far-right parties have been known to spread misinformation since the time of Hitler, which led to anti-Jewish state pogroms. During that era, misinformation was disseminated through newspapers, radio, movies, books, and pamphlets. Today, false narratives can be spread via mobile devices, making them dangerously accessible to everyone. Both educated and uneducated individuals can fall into the trap of such misinformation. Leaders such as Narendra Modi and Donald Trump have been accused of spreading misinformation.

Social media platforms such YouTube, Facebook, X, and Instagram are turning a blind eye to right-wing lies, even though they violate their guidelines. Personally, I have noticed that after watching a few right-wing videos to understand their opinions, my feed becomes filled with right-wing content. Yet no left-wing or humanist media content appeared, even after watching 100 YouTube videos.

There is no effective communication from left-wing leaders to counter misinformation. As a result, resistance to misinformation ranges from high to low, and there is often no resistance at all. Let’s take Franklin D. Roosevelt as an example. During his first term as president (1933 – 1937), the US was suffering from the Great Depression. He utilized radio broadcasts every evening, known as “fireside chats”. These broadcasts earned him high public regard and played a key role in securing three consecutive election victories, including landslides. From this historical example, we can learn that left-wing parties must communicate regularly and effectively to influence the mindset of neutral voters.

Conclusion

I’m a staunch Left-Libertarian (a political identity that seeks to harmonize personal freedom with social and economic equality). During my time in the UK, I was a party member of the Green Party and an active participant in the Marxist Society. In India, I write for the English magazine Modern Rationalist, the mouthpiece of the Dravidar Kazhagam (a Dravidian organization – see endnote). As a leftist, it’s disheartening to witness the consistent failures of left-wing parties globally. However, I’m a pragmatically democratic individual and strongly believe that both the left and right must have equal participation in a democracy. This balance prevents any shift towards the extremes of far-left or far-right ideologies, which can ultimately lead to dictatorship. The reasons explored above highlight the root causes of the decline of left-wing parties worldwide. I hope these parties become more competitive and proactive, rather than ceding the political stage to right-wing forces, which could pave the way for authoritarianism.

Endnote

A Dravidian organization typically refers to a group or movement that promotes the social, political, or cultural interests of the Dravidian people and their languages, primarily in the southern states of India such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. These organizations are often associated with Dravidian identity, anti-caste advocacy, and regional autonomy.