Opportunities to see statesmen in a relaxed setting are rare. Even rarer are moments when they engage in a conversation with a journalist about the uncertain political climate of their country. Yet, such an opportunity arose in mid-August in Dubrovnik. When I meet Tony Blair at the agreed time, he appears at ease, content, and untroubled—unfazed by the fact that our meeting has interrupted his idyllic holiday. This sense of relaxation is, at least in part, due to the setting—the most beautiful terrace in Dubrovnik, belonging to Villa Orsula Hotel, is at its finest. In front of us, the magnificent city of Dubrovnik stretches out, grapevines cast a pleasant shade, and the tireless orchestra of cicadas follows us step by step.
One of the most influential Prime Ministers in British history takes a moment to enjoy the shimmering sea against the ancient city walls, which on this particular morning appear almost surreal, as if floating. Dressed in a casual yet elegant style befitting an English gentleman, it is clear that he is enjoying his Dalmatian getaway. Tony Blair looks remarkably well. Perhaps it is his sun-kissed complexion and the air of relaxation he exudes that helped him remain unnoticed for a full two weeks in Dubrovnik—no local or international media reported on his presence along Stradun, where he often strolled with his family, nor on the Elaphiti Islands, where he enjoyed excursions.
Although more than a decade has passed since his time in office, Blair is busier than ever. His Tony Blair Institute, headquartered in London, employs over 200 people, primarily focused on interfaith dialogue and initiating discussions in places where divisions and prejudices have created barriers. When he is not traveling the world with his institute, Blair delivers speeches and advises organizations and governments—so much so that some critics argue he is the most successful former leader in the world. British journalists who have followed him since the beginning of his decades-long career—stretching from the early 1990s, when he took over the Labour Party, to the present day—often remark on his Cheshire Cat smile, referencing the character from Alice in Wonderland. However, I must disagree. Tony Blair’s smile is neither false nor mischievous; it is a smile designed to put his interlocutor at ease, to offer reassurance, and to create a pleasant atmosphere. It is the smile of someone aware that his presence is extraordinary and powerful—not just due to the undeniable charisma that fills any room he enters but also because of the ever-present security detail that follows him, even on holiday.
“This is my first time in Croatia, and I am absolutely amazed. Why did I not know Dubrovnik was this beautiful? I will definitely be back!” Blair tells me.
Blair’s era lasted for over a decade—a period during which the United Kingdom transformed from a gloomy, cloud-covered island nation into Cool Britannia, bringing British pop culture to the world and reviving the Union Jack as a global icon, even adorning the school supplies of teenagers everywhere. My generation grew up dreaming of life in London, while women worldwide rewatched scenes from Notting Hill, believing that every British man possessed the charm of Hugh Grant.
Though critics often define Blair’s legacy by the Iraq War—questioning its legality and the justification of weapons of mass destruction, which served as the key trigger for Britain’s involvement alongside the U.S. in a conflict with lasting consequences—his role in shaping modern Britain is undeniable.
“A new dawn has broken, hasn’t it?” Blair’s inaugural speech as a 43-year-old Prime Minister remains one of the most memorable and optimistic moments in British political history. Before the nation stood a young leader whose fresh-faced appearance embodied the promise of better times—a rock-and-roll Prime Minister who spoke with Oxford eloquence but had no hesitation in posing with the Spice Girls or socializing with Oasis. Though not favored by the traditional left, being perceived as too business-friendly and aligned with the City of London, his achievements were, at least in part, rooted in fundamental Labour values: Blair introduced the minimum wage, improved the NHS, and played a crucial role in securing peace in Northern Ireland.
Many also credit him with saving the monarchy during the turbulent period following the death of Princess Diana, a moment that severely strained Britain’s relationship with the Crown. New Labour, the rebranding of the Labour Party spearheaded by Blair and his team of young political enthusiasts, became a benchmark for modern politics, securing him three consecutive electoral victories.
At a dinner in the early 2000s, when asked what she considered her greatest achievement, Margaret Thatcher famously responded: “Tony Blair and New Labour.”
In today’s political landscape, New Labour could once again serve as a case study for a world suffering from extreme polarization, divided between an increasingly radical right and an equally extreme left. Emmanuel Macron, who shaped En Marche! as a French and modernized version of New Labour, supports Blair’s claim that many of the West’s current struggles stem from a single issue: the absence of a strong political center.
How does the current global political climate, where it seems that nothing that once held true still applies, differ from the time when you were Prime Minister?
Politics today is highly unpredictable, and I often feel like a student of political science again, as there are many aspects I no longer fully understand. However, my strong instinct is that everything we are encountering in Western politics today—including populism on both the left and right—is partly the result of economic factors stemming from the financial crisis and partly cultural, as a consequence of immigration. I also strongly believe that the solution lies in building a “muscular” and robust center. The absence of such politics in the past decade has led us to where we are now.
Do you believe that strong democracies with robust institutions, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, can truly be shaken by a single individual, like an eccentric leader such as Donald Trump, or an unexpected event like Brexit?
I do not think we can be certain about where politics is headed today. If we do not try to listen to why people choose populism and fail to address their genuine concerns and grievances, the process of populist takeovers of traditional political parties will continue and intensify. We will find ourselves in a world of fragmented populations with completely different perspectives on reality. The real threat to democracy is that its institutions become so divided and sectarian that society splits into two groups that neither listen to nor engage with each other. This is dangerous because democracy has a soul as well as a form. The spirit of democracy is about compromise, agreement, and the belief that what unites us is more important than what divides us. If people start believing that this is not true and that others are not just individuals with different opinions but rather people whose views are entirely illegitimate, that is a perilous path. And that is precisely the direction we are heading in. The challenge for people like me is figuring out how to recreate a progressive center because if we fail, we will face serious problems.
Do the divisions you mention indicate that it is time for new political projects, or should we, on the contrary, adhere to traditional structures?
Bridge-building politics is currently out of fashion in Western politics. If we look at the United States, we see identity politics, where proponents—including Democrats—say, “We must mobilize our voters and overpower the other side.” The entire premise of such an approach is the belief that the other group is foreign and that we simply need to outnumber them. This is entirely opposite to the politics that figures like Bill Clinton or I would represent. Our approach was always to ask why we lost certain voters and to think, “Let’s try to win them back!” We always recognized that there is a cultural difference between young people in their twenties and thirties who are accustomed to diversity and older generations. However, immigration is now a widespread concern across Europe, and we must acknowledge whether these concerns are legitimate. If we do not address them and fail to build a bridge toward these people by reassuring them that immigration will be controlled in a way that maintains trust in the process, then those worried about immigration will be left with no alternative but to turn to the populist right. That is precisely what is happening in Europe today.
Except in France…
Exactly. The only place where this has not happened is France, where a centrist alternative was presented. That is why I tell people that centrist politics has not disappeared—it simply has not been offered.
Do you see Donald Trump as a threat?
What is far more important is to understand why he appeals to people. The risk with Trump is that his opponents become so enraged that they stop thinking rationally. Some of the things he says must be taken seriously, even if we do not like how he expresses them. When he says that Iran destabilizes the Middle East—he is right. When he says that China should reform its state-driven policies—he is correct. There are many issues, including climate change, where I profoundly disagree with him. However, it is crucial to understand what people find attractive about him because only then can we effectively challenge him. Additionally, a significant portion of the electorate, which many perceive as alienated, is drawn to the concept of strong leadership. People feel that today’s politicians are so battered by the media and social networks that they no longer dare to govern. One of the ironies of the modern world is that while social media makes governing harder than ever, it simultaneously creates a deep yearning for strong governance. Someone like Donald Trump, who openly says, “I don’t care what others think; I will do what I want,” is appealing to many.
If you were Prime Minister today, would you see a second referendum as the only solution to stopping Brexit, given your known stance on the issue?
Personally, I believe that is what should happen. If I were leading the country or the Conservative Party today, that would be my approach. I understand that Theresa May is in a very difficult position, and I sympathize with her in many ways. However, the role of a leader is both to educate and to lead. I would explain what options we have and try to expand them, including the possibility of remaining in a reformed Europe, as Europe itself must address its issues. The debate on immigration in Europe today is entirely different from what it was in June 2016. For all these reasons, I believe that Theresa May should present all available options. This would not be a mere repetition of the original referendum, as today, after negotiations, we have a vastly greater understanding of what Brexit truly entails.
Do you believe Brexit can still be stopped?
Yes, I believe the chances of stopping it are currently at 50%. The fundamental flaw in Theresa May’s position—though I believe she has good intentions—is her attempt to respect the Brexit mandate with the proposal she has put forward. However, the truth is that for most passionate Brexit supporters, her proposal does not reflect what they voted for. Her plan essentially leaves the UK bound by European rules but without a voice. The British people are smart enough to recognize that this makes no sense. Many who voted for Brexit were not ardent supporters of leaving the EU. Those who are, however, want a complete separation, and we must acknowledge that. The real question is whether people would still vote for Brexit now that they know its full implications. I personally believe they would not, but that needs to be tested. May’s compromise is a classic elitist compromise—she is trying to leave, but only halfway. No one will be happy with that.
How do you see the UK’s future in the next decade?
It depends on what happens with Brexit. We have placed ourselves in a position unlike anything before—no modern country has gambled with its future to this extent. If we proceed with Brexit, we will have to redefine our future and embrace significant change. There is no viable future for the UK outside of the market in our immediate neighborhood. We are geographically and economically tied to Europe. If Britain leaves the EU, it will have to find a competitive advantage to compensate, which will be politically very difficult.
Is now the time for a return of New Labour?
I am not involved in discussions about a new party, but if you leave a significant vacuum in the center, it will eventually be filled. However, we will be able to judge this more clearly by the end of the year.