Ideology, politics and policies
Political parties can do well without any stringent ideological bonding if they go along with people’s wishes
A debate has been going on about the emergence of rightist forces in many parts of the world. It has also resulted in simmering dissatisfaction at many places.
Most social scientists have studied it and tried to formulate some reasons for it. The eruption of protest marches as witnessed on Capitol Hill, in Berlin, Algeria and Albania has made most political scientists ponder what governs people’s thinking. Is it the ideology, its implementation, mob spontaneity, or is it something else? It allows for the investigation of the importance of ideology in the success of any political journey.
Origin and Growth
It all started with the seating arrangement when the French national assembly met to draft the constitution in 1789. Members who were opposed to granting powers to King Louis XVI found themselves seated on the presiding officer’s left side while more conservatives were on the right side. Later on, terms “left” and “right” were used as labels for opposing political ideologies. Then terms such as “center-left,” “center-right,” “extreme left,” and “extreme right” came into being. Other than the simple left-right analysis, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism and populism are the four most common ideologies.
All will agree that ideology is a cluster of thoughts with which people identify vociferously. Resistance to any challenge to that thought is part of that identification process. It becomes harmful and corrosive when it gets combined with disrespect for other thoughts and isms. Often ideologies based on strict interpretation have utter disregard for social structure and reality, which, in turn, promotes friction within society.
Generally, it is assumed that political parties come into being and grow based on ideology. However, it does not always hold as most voters are unfamiliar with the ideology their chosen party represents. Political scientists also agree that individuals embrace a given ideology to a widely varying degree. Even party lovers are not consistent followers of the ideology that the party represents. The best example is Donald Trump’s election, who, despite his past, could successfully appeal to Republican voters.
Populism Effect
Often, charismatic leadership with a tinge of populism turns the fortune of a political party. However, it has also to do with a given individual and not the ideology. Once in power, they too often chose to do away with their ideology depending on the situation. Often, the right-wing nationalists come to power but later choose their economic policy totally opposite to that of their ideology. Similarly, known leftists chose a mixed economy when governance demanded.
Adherence to an ideology somehow unknowingly requires resistance to any persuasive outside influence. Often the question or message gets drowned, and more focus is on thwarting outside influence, although they may seem credible. It has been an easy practice to label the person bringing the solution if one finds the new thought contrary to the ideological beliefs. Often we find labels such as “socialist”, “unpatriotic”, “extremist” and “libtard”. This belittling of opposing arguments has an ideological basis, hence is a precursor to organised impending sub-human treatment.
Then comes the big question. What makes the ideology survive? It is generally the informed voters. They are the ones who keep party and ideology interlinked. They navigate politics through an ideology, which, in turn, promotes segregation in the electorate. These segregations often result in systematically organised hatreds, which become damaging for society as a whole. It sometimes may lead to tragic scenes, as witnessed on Capitol Hill or in Berlin.
Fixing Politics
Political parties can still do well without any stringent ideological bonding as long as they go along with common people’s wishes. Some of the ways through which politics can become immune to stringent ideological biases are as follows:
- Feedback from electorate: Every political party can design its roadmap by getting a referendum done on all essential issues every three years. Results of this referendum can form the basis of policy formulations for the political party. Preferences can change after every three years, so there is nothing rigid in the developing thought process. It will ultimately result in followers who do not have closed minds and are more accommodating in outlook. Having this approach will also help in having better voters, better leaders, and a better election process.
- Preferential voting: Instead of majority support voting, there should be preferential voting. It will help in developing the stake of every voter in the victory/defeat of every candidate. Hence, rigidity regarding ideology will eventually get diluted, and a more inclusive thought process will get promoted in the electorate. It will also make elected parliamentarians work for general public interest rather than promoting their party-specific ideology to easily win future elections.
- Seating together: Other than the PM and council of ministers, it will be great if all parliamentarians of various political parties are seated in alphabetical order and not separately with their parties. It will help dilute ideological walls, which will be a message for the electorate to do away with the rigidity of the thought process.
- Redrawing constituencies: It has been observed that specific constituencies, over time in subsequent elections, become the stronghold of any given ideology, which, in fact, further promotes friction between ideologies. This, in turn, organises hatred specific to a given area. It can be taken care of by frequent redrawing of boundaries of stronghold constituencies. It will ensure that there are no seemingly permanent strongholds of any given ideology.
It is more feasible to do away with stringent thought processes and have an inclusive viewpoint on all internal issues. Doctrines should be guided by tolerance, acceptance and development as the foundation stones. Doing away with tribal and confirmatory affiliations would help in becoming more rational and open-minded on all issues.
Inaction in this regard would amount to the repetition of madness and re-emergence of unpleasant scenes. These unpleasant scenes will definitely become the new normal, and soon the urge to rectify it will also die down.
(The author is a finance professional based in Toronto)
Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.
Click to follow Telangana Today Facebook page and Twitter .
