Move over Che, there’s a new Guy in town

Iconography of protest gets a 17th century upgrade.

Whether it is used to issue ultimatums to Mexican drug cartels or for demanding economic equality in financial districts the world over, the image of Guy Fawkes has become synonymous with 21st century popular protest.

Take the cover of last week's New Statesman for instance - under the headline "Young, angry and... right?" a Guy Fawkes-masked protester stares directly at the camera; the symbol of Western disillusionment is the face of a 17th century English Catholic, executed for high-treason and popularised by the Hollywood version of an 80s English comic book. How has this come to be?

The answer lies more in events of 2006 than 1605, when Warner Brothers released V for Vendetta, a film adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel of the same name. Set in Britain in a dystopian future, the film's hero adopts the Fawkes mask in his attempt to bring down a corrupt totalitarian regime. It culminates with the destruction of the Houses of Parliament, set to Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.

This Saturday much of the country will celebrate Fawkes's foiling, by setting of fireworks and burning effigies of him, while protestors across the world adorn his mask.

Although some wearers of the mask are sure to be drawn to the powerful imagery of this archetypal anti-establishment figure, there are probably equally as many who just think it looks cool. After all it's not like everyone who wears a Che Guevara T Shirt is a bona fide guerrilla. Perhaps it would be churlish to suggest that the Occupy movement's association with the image is ill-advised given that Fawkes was in essence the scapegoat of a failed revolution.

And much like Che, Fawkes has seen his visage commoditised to such an extent that if he wasn't dead, he wouldn't be able to show his face among any self-respecting revolutionaries.

Getty
Show Hide image

Want an independent-minded MP? Vote for a career politician

The brutally ambitious are not content to fall in with the crowd. 

“Never having had a ‘real’ job outside of politics”: this is what the majority of respondents told a YouGov poll in 2014 when asked the most undesirable characteristic of the British politician. The result is hardly surprising. Type the words “career politician” into your search engine or raise the topic at a dinner party, and quickly you will be presented with a familiar list of grievances.

One of the fundamental criticisms is that career politicians in parliament are elitists concerned only with furthering their own interests. Their pronounced and self-serving ambition for climbing the ministerial ladder is said to turn them into submissive party-machines, sycophants or yes men and women, leading them to vote loyally with their party in every parliamentary division. But do we actually have evidence for this?

A new in-depth analysis, to be published later this month in the academic journal, Legislative Studies Quarterly, presents a forceful challenge to this conventional wisdom. In fact, I find that career politician MPs in the UK are more likely to rebel against their party than their non-career politician peers. Why?

My study was motivated by the observation that the existing impression of the party loyalty of career politicians is based mostly on anecdotal evidence and speculation. Moreover, a look through the relevant journalistic work, as well as the sparse extant academic literature, reveals that the two main hypotheses on the topic make starkly contradictory claims. By far the most popular — but largely unverified — view is that their exclusively professional reliance on politics renders career politicians more brutally ambitious for frontbench office, which in turn makes them especially subservient to the party leadership.

The opposing, but lesser known expectation is that while career politicians may be particularly eager to reach the frontbenches, “many of them are also much too proud and wilful to be content to serve as mere lobby fodder”, as the late Anthony King, one of the shrewdest analysts of British politics, observed nearly thirty years ago on the basis of more qualitative evidence.

Faced with these opposing but equally plausible prognoses, I assembled biographical data for all the MPs of the three big parties between 2005-15 (more than 850) and analysed all parliamentary votes during this period. I followed the debate’s prevalent view that an exclusive focus on politics (e.g. as a special adviser or an MP’s assistant) or a closely-related field (e.g. full-time trade union official or interest group worker) marks an MP as a careerist. In line with previous estimations, just under 20 per cent of MPs were identified as career politicians. The extensive statistical analysis accounted for additional factors that may influence party loyalty, and largely ruled out systematic differences in ideology between career and non-career politicians, as well as party or term-specific differences as drivers of the effects.

As noted above, I find strong evidence that career politician backbenchers are more likely to rebel. The strength of this effect is considerable. For example, amongst government backbenchers who have never held a ministerial post, a non-career politician is estimated to rebel in only about 20 votes per parliament. By contrast, a career politician dissents more than twice as often — a substantial difference considering the high party unity in Westminster.

This finding reveals a striking paradox between the predominantly negative opinion of career politicians on the one hand, and the electorate's growing demand for more independent-minded MPs on the other. In fact career politicians are the ones who perform best in delivering on this demand. Similarly, the results imply that the oft-cited career-related dependency of career politicians on the party can be overridden (or, at the very least, complemented) by their self-image as active and independent-minded participants in the legislative process. This should attenuate the prevalent concern that a rise in career politicians leads to a weakening of parliament’s role as a scrutinizing body.

Finally, the findings challenge the pervasive argument that a lack of experience in the real world disqualifies an MP from contributing meaningfully to the legislative process. Instead, it appears that a pre-parliamentary focus on politics can, under certain circumstances, boost an MP's normatively desirable willingness to challenge the party and the executive.

Raphael Heuwieser is researching political party loyalty at the University of Oxford.