.png)
In domestic political environments worldwide, it is increasingly difficult to cooperate and get along with others who have different beliefs to our own. Any discussion with those we disagree with can often result in unconstructive arguments. Interruptions, shouting, and contempt in such conversations prevent any understanding of the other person's perspective and ultimately hinders progress through compromise. This lack of cooperation in today's political climate is further aggravated by radicalisation in the media, public opinion, and political parties, further divided by their ideological differences to the point of seeing opposing viewpoints as evil or contemptible. This process of political opinions being further radicalised against each other is known as toxic or severe political polarisation . Society’s multiple identities and opinions are reduced to an “either you are with us or against us” rhetoric. Such a binary simplification of political views is dangerous, not only for the state of democracies, but also for the functioning of politics.
Ideally, politics is the mechanism through which a country governs itself with healthy debate being a process in allowing political actors to compete over setting public policy. It is therefore natural to expect some political division between different political sides and parties, as each side has separate identities and material interests . However, politics can only effectively deliver sound and functioning policy solutions to existing problems, such as climate change, immigration and socio-political conflict, if the various actors work together, not attack one another, to resolve these issues. A diversity of opinions is necessary for effective public policy because no one political side will have a comprehensive grasp on all complex political problems, which are almost always multi-faceted. For this reason, politics should have different political sides and opinions, all contributing to the debate, and fostering a healthy democracy to combat such prominent issues.
Have a look at Robert Reich's excellent nuanced video on how the shifting of the political compass has led to more polorisation in the context of the US.
Let’s take the centurial issue of secular/religious conflict from Turkey. This issue concerns whether the Turkish state and culture should be further integrated or separate from Islam and other religious associations. On the one hand, there exist the “seculars” who believe that religion should be kept separate to respect everyone’s beliefs. On the other are the “Islamists” who advocate for Islam to be practised in schools and politics. Under the toxic political environment, each side does not work to reconcile their differences or reduce cultural tension but instead, continuously views one another through a prism of antagonism.
In this domain, Turkish politics fails to deliver a proper solution as each side does not aim for a country in which they can live however they want; instead, each side attempts to oppress the other. This cultural polarisation incentivises President Erdoğan’s right-wing AK party (the Justice and Development Party) supporters to pursue the government's undemocratic policies while its main rival party, the left-wing CH (Republican People's Party), is so opposed in values with AK that there is little cooperation in parliament. Such a radicalisation of opinions against one another is occurring worldwide and is threatening the functioning of democratic politics. Despite having different organisational types, all democracies require some consensus through compromise between different political sides to pass legislation. If political sides become more radicalised against one another, democracy could be discredited, and effective politics can instead be stuck in gridlock.
When a political system becomes discredited by the severe polarisation of society and political parties, the move towards an autocratic dictatorship is increasingly possible. In Western democracies, political parties are too busy blaming each other, oblivious that the toxic political environment they all inadvertently helped create could end the democratic system that gave them the right to represent their opinions. This end of freedom can be seen through the ineffective politics of autocracies worldwide. Autocracies such as China, Myanmar, and Mali have a single person, party or religious/monarchic entity controlling the government. Without questioning or debate, politics, which helps run the government and public policy, has further chances of becoming ineffective and plunging countries into crises. Some democracies like Turkey and Hungary are already approaching authoritarianism, with severe polarisation allowing one political side to take hold of government.
To prevent severe polarisation from destroying effective politics and democracy, public opinion and political parties must be pushed more towards the political centre with more of an open mind to debate. They must realise that effective politics and democracy require discussion and compromise between different political beliefs and opinions. To reach such a realisation, all political sides must understand that while they have separate identities and beliefs, they are not as radically different from one another as portrayed and framed by the media and political parties. They are not facing enemies but fellow adversaries who are there to discuss and debate to produce sound policies for the nation, not for the needs of a single political side.
Depolarising politics could start with setting up citizens’ assemblies, which can increase public discussion between political sides , rather than through the toxic media and political parties. As for the media and political parties, enough awareness generated by the public around severe polarisation can compel our politics to change against the threat of severe polarisation. Once more interaction exists between political sides, the conditions for debate and compromise, necessary components of democracy and efficient politics, could be created. Although such scenarios are hopeful and theoretical, if we all knew more about this phenomenon and talked with one another more respectfully, the state of politics would be ameliorated.
Comments