As we set sail in writing a piece that we have wanted for long, we feel the inescapable need to begin with a disclaimer. Neither of us has been paid, neither in cash nor in kind, by the BJP, the Republicans, the Conservatives or any of their supporters. The title of this article may instinctively make us seem like hard right-wingers who, in the middle of a global political turmoil, have set out to defend a particular sect in this pell-mell. However, much to your dismay, or perhaps outright relief, this is not the case.
We are two normal human beings who prefer being identified as centrists. At the centre of every spirited debate that our young and restless generation finds itself in, is a recurring trope that prevails- one that ostensibly grounds itself in the idea of what is loosely referred to as ‘leftism’. Although the use of the term, especially in the present woke-fuelled age, is an unsettling misfit, you get the drill. Hence, before co-opting into it, we wish to critique this narrative, which tries to portray the ‘leftist’ paradigm as the only ‘sane, ethical choice’, to the best of our ability. However, this doesn’t mean that we’ve blinded ourselves to the obvious flaws in the state of affairs that our peers choose to oppose. We must cherish and applaud citizens’ right to dissent and protest, even more so when it comes from the student fraternity. We condemn the acts of violence against students and academicians, the threats and the overall atmosphere of fear in the strongest of words. When it comes to political leadership, right-wing heads of government like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orban have, at multiple occasions, conducted themselves in manners which are undeniably inexcusable and frankly, reprehensible. We unflinchingly stand against such actions and words. The only thing we’re here to test is whether the right deserves this opposition with the same intensity as it exists. Afterall, if the right is perceived as more wrong than it is; then it is a mirror of the same misrepresentation and misinformation that the left so despises.
Talking of the academic spaces that we’re a part of, we feel that people are often quick to pass judgements based on what’s easy to defend because other ‘woke’ people are saying it. ‘Rise of the right’ is a phrase often found in newspaper headlines, given the trend of election results across the world. More often than not, this phrase is issued in an ‘Oh, no!’ sense as if a right-wing party winning an election calls for caution merely based on their political orientations. The basic problem is the conflation and resultant discrediting of the right-wing ideology due to the limited and arguably poor set of leaders who are considered reflective of these larger ideas. Just because those representing them may not be sophisticated, it is wrong to discredit right wing ideas as a whole.
Even in terms of societal perception, today, ‘conservative’ is treated synonymous with something rigid, non-dynamic and repressive. If anyone says they tilt towards the right, they are automatically assumed as opponents of freedom and equality. Such comparisons are uncalled for and create a sense of uneasiness around an entire sphere of public debate and political ideology.
The influence of this atmosphere is potently visible in one’s self-categorisation of economic and political leanings. Among those who are not intense followers of one ideology, left-leaning individuals would feel comfortable giving out the impression that they are firm believers in socialism or communism. On the contrary, those believing in rightist ideology might attempt to take a weaker stance by calling themselves centrists or non-aligned, simply because it is ‘safer’ in terms of being received better by those around you. . Both instances betray a certain societal pressure to portray oneself as more leftist, relative to reality. This gap is problematic because it leads to the prevalence of presuppositions of a leftward tilt in overall belief, whereas a part of that shift may just be inaccuracy caused by peer influence. Ironically, this safer choice itself reeks of extremism, albeit in the less expected direction. This inscrutable need to be anti-establishment, in essence, parallels the squashing of dissent and free speech which the left itself (justifiably) stands against.
In today’s times, holding any political stance is an outright invitation to a grilling session from proponents on either side of the spectrum. It is imperative to understand that right and left are not simply two sides of a coin but are relative concepts. When we talk about a political spectrum, every point on such a spectrum can be left or right relative to any other arbitrary point. Unfortunately, more often than not, neither side seeks to offer a fair understanding of their perspective. Instead, they rant about their opponents and fallacies in their arguments without any concern for inconsistencies in their own. This phenomenon of a “no shift rift”, showcases how even in cases of mild shifts in ideology, rifts are created between people because of their flaring sensitivity about personal opinions; as if, holding a different ideology is a bad thing.
If X, as a centrist, was to take a moderately pro-industry stance; she would be appreciated to a limited degree by a set of people on the right-end of the spectrum (who would not fully appreciate X owed to her hesitation to go all out with her stance), while those on the left-end of the spectrum might oppose her ideology vehemently for simply being moderately right-leaning. So, out of helplessness in this ideological impediment, she chooses not to make any public statements, to prevent resentment from either side. However, what she lands himself in, is a whirlwind of trouble. Because now, her woke friends pass the value judgement that her silence and inaction is, in a way, equivalent to repressiveness and lack of concern for the country and its people thereof. But one wonders where similar statements have been heard before? It is quite funny, that those who taunt the right for calling the left anti-national for rightfully criticising the government over their fallouts, would also resort to a similar labelling when it comes to someone possessing a relatively right-wing ideology.
The problem with such a backlash is that it almost creates an environment similar to what management thinkers call, groupthink or the tendency of a group to give assent to an idea that the majority holds or that which is held by the most eloquent and vocal speakers. We all know about the polarisation that emerges with either of the two.
The left and right ideologies are a prescription of methodologies for society at large to achieve the common goal of welfare and better lives for its constituents. This makes them the means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. This distinction should ideally direct us towards a healthy relationship between the opposing sides, given that they are supposed to be working towards the same goal. But the strategies of discourse followed by either side betray the harsh reality. There is a certain avoidance of legitimate logic put forth by the other side. Suppose our friend A puts forth an argument backed by some logic X. The manner in which A’s opponent B tackles it is not by arguing against X itself, but by either misrepresenting X to be another (weaker) logic Y, a classic strawman; or by extending X to the point of a slippery slope or by attacking A, instead of X; a clear ad hominem. This artificially created supremacy of the weaker argument may be a strategy consciously adopted by a movement or group to increase their odds. Alternatively, it can also stem from the side of the unbiased fence-sitters or neutral parties, by virtue of selective listening, and spread accordingly.
An example of these diversionary tactics was seen when Amnesty International was forced to halt its operations in India. While an organisation promoting human rights does typically deserve respect, it is illogical to talk of the matter only in terms of government repression while disregarding the regulatory aspect entirely. Even if one further questions the very framework within which Amnesty is being targeted, since the organisation is not pleading ignorance of the law, it is inherently their burden to ensure their operations fall within the ambit of established law. Much of the broad support for the organisation relied on intangibles, rather than any justification of non-violation of the particular legislations.
This brings us to the ghost that has corresponded to the genesis of The Establishment- extremism. George Santayana eloquently said of fanaticism that it is “redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim”. Extremism is, quite truly, the exacerbation of effort to the extent of truncating the root behind it. Extremists showcase conformity to high standards of low tolerance and destroy their sanity and sagacity with a coloured variant of a utopia. If one thing is certain about man, it is that he is a sucker for these bedtime stories- ones that make him believe that a world lies ahead of him where there is no suffering, where there is no pain, where there is no distance between him and his wants, and that this world is demanded by some decree (godly or worldly), but that there is such a decree and he must execute it, irrespective of the cost he must have to pay. This turning of a blind eye to all the ravaging that must be done to achieve this ‘divine decree’ is a primary concern. The mordant reality is that even as more among us become aware of the ramifications, such instances of these ideologies manifest themselves unfazed by geospatial barriers. Some instances include the call for Islamisation or closer to home, its antithesis. Saffronisation.
However, what we see is that somehow, all of these extremist ideas are outrightly right-leaning – conservative and reeling back to religious tenets and sifting people based on this assumed notion of world order- Hitleresque, as one might say. As the right side of the political spectrum is being tainted with accusations of murder, genocide, and discrimination, the left side, is glorified as the new ichor. An ideology for the modern- one representing progress, and one with the power to combat the oppressive state. However, to a rational mind, that doesn’t want to make an immediate choice, this doesn’t add up. How can the opposite of genocide and mass killings necessarily be progress and modernity? And are these so-called evils exclusive to the right?
Right about now, not talking of Karl Marx is tantamount to sin. His notion of uprooting the bourgeoisie and creating a state of equity, especially for those who are exploited seems quite well-intentioned. As beautiful as Marx’s idea seems, is it all that innocent in reality? Many have tried to answer this question- like Aristotle, way before communism as a political ideology was even born. His criticism of the Socratic left, an arguably rudimentary and/or inchoate form of modern day communism, rested on three major pillars- the stimulus of gain and ownership being necessary to incentivise arduousness and industry respectively, collective ownership leading to shirking off of individual responsibility (as seen in the case of climate change), and the inherent wickedness of human nature. It is only rational of political science then, he said, to accept and treat man in their natural form; unequal, different and ethically bent.
Many years after Aristotle, Marx and other minds with great political insight, we have seen that the third pillar becomes the most ostensible reason for why neither side of the political spectrum could ever deliver a utopian model. A great example to cite here is Chile and el estallido. A communist government, put in place to serve as the antithesis of Pinochet’s regime, receives one of the greatest oppositions in the country’s history. What started as a symbol of resentment from the students of the country’s emblematic high school at Santiago, propounded into a nation-wide demand for a constitutional overhaul. This follows, ironically, after Pinochet brought his predecessor Allende’s staunch communist rule to its conclusion. Thus, in its three waves of political supplantings and overhauls, Chile still awaits its road to
While the hunt for an optimal socio-political structure is not a sporadic pursuit, we feel that the end goal which comes from this hunt is extremely elusive. This might happen because the answer is probably extinct or simply doesn’t exist for the state of affairs we have gotten ourselves into. Another probable reason could be that the answer is so quotidian that we can no longer notice it. Whatever be the reason, one thing is certain; humanity and its search for utopia is what Simon Sinek would call, “an infinite game”. The end goal of human affiliation with an ideology, on the other hand, is finite. As these ideologies continue to grow and change form, the finite ends that they have become fleeting. In that regard, this tussle is a never ending endeavour and one must, therefore, be prudent in analysing and accrediting the merit in each of these ideological arguments and ethically call out fallacies, if any, instead of following a blind crowd.
Whether you think of political ideologies to be a spectrum or a Cartesian plane, whether you feel it’s imperative to be haranguing in your diatribes or not, the goal of that innate political spirit inside each of us is to create a positive benefit. The purpose is to bring to reality the idea of a perfect country. This idea may be vastly different for each of us, hence the denigration and constant tussles, but the truth is – if your conquest for ideological supremacy is built upon the intellectual fallacy of your opponents, how incontrovertible is it anyways?
Parth Chowdhary and Eshita Bhat are students at the Sri Ram College of Commerce, University of Delhi.