There is a general understanding that the most dangerous trend to develop in politics is the advent of “fake news” and “alternative facts” which are, in turn, creating a “post-truth” society.
The reality is that such phenomena are not new. Indeed, these terms are increasingly being used by politicians and observers to describe what was previously recognised as blatant propaganda and political spin.
The only new variable in the political equation is the popularity of social media which had the unintended effect of presenting a reductionist and simplistic view of concepts, news items and ideas.
Facebook or Twitter news feeds feature thousands of posts, each presented in similar formats and given equal weighting. It has thus become harder to decipher what is news and what is propaganda. Political operatives do not make the job any easier. The continuous trading of insults and charges of fake news are ushering in a crisis of credibility where interpretation is replacing ‘fact’ and ‘news’.
While these trends are concerning, there is another issue which is poisoning politics. The concept of voting and choosing “the lesser evil” is a far more worrying trend. It is best summed up in Indro Montanelli’s advice to the Italian electorate throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: “Hold your noses and vote for Christian Democracy.” This attitude did little to prevent the collapse of the Italian first republic in the early 1990s.
The 2016 US presidential election was the latest result which epitomised this trend. Both candidates went into the election with high disapproval ratings. The choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was considered to be Hobson’s choice. Whoever would emerge victorious from that election would prove to be controversial and unpopular.
Now, a similar trend is evolving throughout Europe.
In France, voters are encouraged to choose any presidential candidate except for Marine Le Pen. The two other main contenders, Francois Fillon and Emmanuel Macron, have both been embroiled in scandal and controversy. The very able Fillon had to apologise for putting his wife on the payroll while Macron had to apologise for describing French colonialism as a “crime against humanity”.
The idea that a candidate or a political party is a ‘lesser evil’ is worrying. The term itself implies that politics is somehow evil
In Germany and the Netherlands, the growing popularity of Frauke Petry’s Alternative für Deutschland and Geert Wilders’s Partij Voor de Vrijheid have forced mainstream politicians to rescind on some signature policies and to adopt positions which are more in tune with the general sentiments of the electorate. All mainstream political parties have, so far, ruled out ever forming a coalition with such populist groupings.
The electoral systems in France, Germany and the Netherlands are unlikely to replicate the same electoral surprises from 2016. However, a precedent is set. The populist parties are energised and ready for a fight while voters will reluctantly have to “hold their noses” and vote for the lesser evil.
Identifying the lesser evil is, of course, highly subjective. Meanwhile, the entire political culture is being affected by this widespread viewpoint.
The idea that a candidate or a political party is a lesser evil is worrying. The term itself implies that politics is somehow evil. The understanding of politics as both a vocation and a public service is slowly eroding. Such concepts are perceived to be utopic rather than realistic.
Voting for a lesser evil makes convenience, rather than conviction, the main currency of public life. A quick glance at the main ongoing political debates reveals that many last-minute u-turns have exacerbated the role of political convenience.
Political discourse is shaped by the concerns raised by populist parties. The populist groupings have been successful in turning voter apathy into full blown anger. The mainstream political parties can no longer ignore such fears.
Polarisation is also on the increase. However, people are no longer divided along the lines of the old left/right, liberal/conservative ideologies but rather on the lines of being either in favour or against established practices and politics.
The established political groupings have their fair share of blame to take. They nurtured a political class which is, at best, out of touch, uninspiring and insipid. The leading candidates have, so far, failed to encourage or generate fresh and new ideas. Indeed, most of the political debates are a response to the highly strung discourse of populist parties.
The Blairite model of inoffensive centrism and McCarthyite political correctness creates a bland style of politics on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. The “politics of the lesser evil” does nothing to energise moribund centrism nor reverse the tide of populism.
The warning signs are all over the place. Unfortunately, there seems to be no appetite to take heed and address challenges and shortcomings. This has created a vacuum which so-called populists have been all too glad to fill.
andre.deb@gmail.com
The author is an independent researcher in the field of politics and international relations.