The Proof is in the Partisanship

The world has long since been going down a dangerous road of increased political partisanship and populism. Indeed, if recent western election results are anything to go by, it seems that the more outlandish one becomes, the more likely one is to gain political capital and, by extension, power.

Although this has been a trend for quite a few years now with the reasons being complex (see my piece regarding the reasons for the Brexit vote), it seems to have become increasingly and more explicitly apparent with the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

Traditionally within political spheres, be it left wing or right wing, there has always been a trend (to at least a far greater extent than cotemporally) to put partisanship to aside when our respective side of the political argument does something truly and undeniably wrong. This, however, is a trend that has become increasingly broken and skewed in recent years, with scandal after scandal, particularly on the populist right, doing nothing to break the stable polling figure bases that these parties have: it seems that the fear and distain for the contrary side of the political spectrum is such that respective electorates would still be happier to elect rapists, racists, and men who regard hundreds of thousands of deaths as expendable.

This is creating a very fragile state of affairs, with neither side of the political divide willing to engage in anything beyond shouting matches, we have all the ingredients necessary to create serious political unrest and, dare I say, a series of fresh civil wars or, at minimum, some serious skirmishes.

What, then, are we to make of this? Is this something that is avoidable or is it something that, inversely, should be embraced (particularly among fellow leftists) as a means to revolution; a means to reset the political system and create meaningful socioeconomic change within society at a time where it is so clearly and desperately needed.

The answer here is far from black and white and, indeed, ought to be taken in the broader context of global political affairs. What I mean by this is that it isn’t merely acceptable to regard tipping points of partisanship as isolated domestic events since, as stated above, this is a global phenomena at a very fragile time in human history. Thus, merely predicting revolution in one nation is far too simplistic and far more likely to initiate highly flammable and unpredicted economic events on the global stage.

Furthermore, we forget ourselves a tad here when discussing the feasibility and appeal of revolution: we forget the great triumphs of democracy and the suffering a revolution can come with, be it economically, by the creation of untold numbers of refugees and, of course, the countless inevitable deaths.

Therefore, there is an incumbency on the left to, while remaining a necessary radical force for much needed change, to stabilise once again the pollical environment in which we live in: to not meet the extremism on the right with appeasement but rather with a litany of ideas to reach the wider public.

In short and to conclude this brief piece, we must refrain from the shouting matches that only empower the radical views of the right, we must make our message heard and coherent once again to the people we have left behind (the same people under the populist spell of the right) and only when we do that can we be the change we want to see. This is a means to and end for a better future.

Gone is the era of serious debate surrounding the question of reform or revolution, enter the era of radical pragmatism.