Is Political Neutrality Dead in The Water?

Over recent years, we have seen a global rise in right-wing parties and nationalist groups who are politically opposed by socialist and far-left movements; it seems we have become increasingly accustomed to witnessing two opposing bodies in the political ring fighting passionately for our votes. The ever-decreasing presence of centrist parties in the Cabinet (e.g. the Liberal Democrats) begs the following question: has neutral politics reached its natural conclusion?

Current global crises such as the Syrian conflict, religious fundamentalism, the diaspora of fleeing migrants in Europe and a whole plethora of growing concerns have led to a polarisation in political mapping that comes as a direct corollary of the need for immediate, firm action. One cannot simply sit on the fence any more. In fact, the fence has been passionately demolished by the wave of disparate voters who have come to political loggerheads with one another. Indeed, on the occasion where one is asked about their political preference, it tends to be an implicit acknowledgement that they will align themselves with either left (e.g. Labour) or right (e.g. Conservative); the middle ground is rarely trodden upon. Many of today’s pressing national and supranational decisions require a firm grasp of the political wheel that needs guidance from a trusty navigational compass; decisions on intervention vs non-intervention in Syria, for example, require political deliberation that is efficient, pragmatic and headstrong in coming to a firm position. It is not expedient for a party to be stuck in the middle when it comes to intervention and foreign policy, and it weakens their presence amongst the electorate through seeming indecisive, unclear and generally unable to form a concrete solution regarding the motion.

Of course, it is not simply the idea of sitting on the proverbial fence that makes neutrality so unattractive in today’s political arena. Another essential cause of the polarised politics we are seeing across the globe is the emotional investment people put into voting choices and ideological preferences. At an anthropological level, one may argue that mobilisation amongst the electorate tends to arise only where there is a sense of threat or gain concerning one’s life and cultural attachments; for example, we saw many anti-governmental protests in Paris 2014 following the legislation to approve gay marriage. These protests were an assembly of mainly Catholic families who had lived comfortable, middle class lives in Paris from a traditionalist background; for them, the ratification of the gay marriage mandate meant a threat to the rose-tinted France they felt so strongly a part of. It could therefore be argued that right-wing ideological positioning comes about more frequently where there are political motions that threaten traditionalist, patriarchal views. One may likewise conjecture that left-wing positioning arises out of political threats to modernisation, equality and liberalism.

It would be extremely difficult to write a piece about political polarisation without referencing the ‘B word’. Domestically, the Brexit vote revealed just how divided people were concerning the European project and the EU; at 52% leave to 48% remain, it was clear from the referendum result that the UK population is deeply divided with regards to political consensus. What did the results suggest about ideological preference? The fact that a large proportion of leave-voters were amongst the elderly population corroborates with the idea of modernization and collective progress (concepts the EU promulgates) being an assumed threat to traditionalist, national values. Moreover, a large majority of the remain-voters were from a much younger age group, suggesting the EU’s goals of collective security and building an effective single-market resonate very well with young people. Additionally, we saw political polarisation in the highly restrictive in/out ballot choice, which left no alternative to the populous in deciding on the Britain’s relationship with the European Union. The result of the referendum acted like a pair of political hands turning over a large stone to reveal dirt and insects; we are now hearing of a potential Frexit (depending on the outcome of the French national election) as well as anti-federal initiatives in the USA, such Texit (a Texan exit from the grasp of Washington!).

Having looked at some reasons for polarised political mapping, is there any space left for politically centrist movements today? Despite the perceived subordination of neutral parties, they may offer us an alternative that we are all lacking in our hearts and minds when we think about the Cabinet. A central force that quells right and left quarrelling in parliament could be exactly what the UK and the rest of the world require; such a body could offer diplomatic, unbiased and impartial reasoning on issues of foreign policy and international affairs, as well as leading sensible dialogues on the domestic sphere. Moreover, it needn’t stoop to ad hominem attacks in the Commons, as it needn’t pick an enemy; this would leave much more space for pragmatic policy debate rather than cat-like quibbling that we tend to see between strongly opposing parties.

Conclusively, we have certainly seen a dip in centrist party support over recent years. Many of the causes have centred around foreign policy, intervention, Syria, ISIS and the EU, in that these areas have needed a strong force to guide policy mandates on them, thus influencing voting patterns. However, the right/left divide is becoming quite an erosive substance for the Cabinet, manifesting itself in countless personal jibes and a lack of focus on concrete policy measures. Despite weakened support for parties in the middle of the sphere, there is still a lot to say for the aims of a central party; in this politically divided world, it may well be time that we trod that middle ground once again…