‘Ideologies are a thing of the past.’ ‘The greatest ideological issues have all been addressed.’ ‘Formulating pragmatic and workable policies should be the only aim of legislators.’
These three phrases are now an integral part of political discourse. However, their frequent use explains why politics is so poor and democracies so weak.
The term ‘ideology’ has some very negative connotations. The past century is replete with examples of the destructive aspect of ideology. The National Socialist ideology, fuelled by anti-Semitic sentiments, led to a deadly holocaust. Communism and socialism led to equally devastating situations.
The distrust, fear and insecurity of the Cold War were partly blamed on the ideological differences between the US and the Soviet Union. When this ended, many hoped that a new, post-ideological society would rise from the ashes of the old system.
The negative outcomes of some ideologies should not tarnish their significance. Ideology involves ideas and ideals which shape politics, society and the economy. The positive effects of ideology are often overlooked.
Conservatism emphasises the importance of social order and free enterprise, Christian Democracy underscores the centrality of the human person, Liberalism stresses the importance of equality, Social Democracy advocates greater government intervention in the economy and libertarianism supports a more laissez-faire approach.
Ideological debates underpinned by a strong constitutional framework strengthen, rather than weaken, democracy. Post-war prosperity in Europe was largely due to this exchange of ideas. Government actions were inspired by both conviction and pragmatism; opposition parties held the government accountable on both matters of policy and ideas that motivated them.
The current neo-liberal consensus buried ideologies and replaced them with pure self-interest. The views of some leading luminaries can be summed up as follows: everyone and everything has a price while selfishness and greed are virtues.
While economies try to recover from the worse financial crisis in over a century, governing by principle seems like a risky and expensive exercise. Citizens feel more insecure about their future and governments tend to respond by trying to lessen their concerns on their financial future. This often leads to a virtual ‘privatisation’ of public life – where political decisions are taken in the interest of few (often multinational) commercial interests in the hope that this will eventually lead to greater prosperity.
The utilitarian approach to politics is likely to prevail in the absence of sound ideas backed by coherent political philosophies
Many political groups rally against supra-national organisations out of a genuine fear of a loss of sovereignty. This is, at times, justifiable. Nonetheless, political organisations can and have the capacity to reform whereas commercial interests are democratically unaccountable and run in the interest of a few individuals.
It is a matter of concern when commercial interests take on a disproportionate role in the exercise of governance. The need for short-term economic growth sidelines long-term concerns about sustainability and the common good. When governments fail to differentiate between the wider need of the citizen and the narrow commercial interests of very few dominant corporations, sovereignty is eroded. Sectoral interests may not limit themselves to lobbying; they might attempt to write and dictate the agenda.
This attitude impedes politicians from speaking freely, hampers dialogue between social partners and indirectly transfers legislative functions to anonymous, unaccountable boardrooms – often in faraway commercial centres.
The privatisation of political power has rendered the democratic process more vulnerable. Elections have become costly commercial exercises determined by expensive marketing and public relations campaigns. This has opened the field to wealthy commercial contributions and some unscrupulous operatives.
Regrettably, this utilitarian approach to politics is likely to prevail in the absence of sound ideas backed by coherent political philosophies. It also tarnishes the image of two elements which are necessary for every democratic society – sound political systems and a genuinely free market.
Developing a healthy dynamic between the two is difficult, complex but necessary. The free market requires a sound legal framework which respects the right to private property. Nonetheless, the free market needs sound and stable political systems to operate and thrive.
When some commercial interests and corrupt practices try to dominate the political system, the market is skewed and can no longer be considered to be free. Similarly, the market doesn’t offer all the solutions to political problems.
A government should ensure that there are the right conditions for the free market to thrive, but governance should not be subservient. Moreover, there are some issues which do not boil down to mere choice.
Some distressing social issues require a healthier understanding of the common good while profound ethical questions cannot be reduced to choice or personal preference. The corrective measure needed to avoid the appeasement of narrow sectoral interests is to rediscover the values and principles which shape our political decisions and to try and live by them.
The starting point can be the injection of some life in the moribund market of ideas. Our political systems are crying out for some critical thinking which revolves around great principles and big ideas.
This is one of the antidotes to the nihilism which currently directs our political systems – a nihilism driven by capital and based on the fear of insecurity, exploitation, underemployment and the erosion of the common good.
André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.