In the last several decades, political discourse has been characterised by labels that are becoming increasingly irrelevant today.
Everywhere you turn, somebody is calling somebody else some name – shorthand for what the other person’s political philosophy or ideological leanings are perceived to be. No wonder many are increasingly becoming cynical of our leaders’ effectiveness in improving our lives.
Business leaders know the importance of the impact of product labels on consumers. Some old established brands stick to the labels they have used for decades, knowing their clients trust the labels that deliver the quality they expect from a product. Unfortunately, most political leaders use labels to demonise their adversaries without providing what the public expects from them.
If labels inform, then they can be helpful. However, when they confuse or mislead, they erode consumers’ trust in the product.
Some political analysts blame the irrelevance of political labels to the general dumbing down of educational standards in the past few decades. The resulting degeneration of public debate has led to a disillusionment with the commonly used political labels.
Too many politicians hone their rhetorical skills. Some even aspire for eloquence excellence. They believe this is all that matters today, where communication on social media reaches everybody interested in keeping abreast of current affairs in real time. Such mediocre political leaders and their diehard acolytes simply pigeonhole others in a fashion that may be quick and convenient but is mostly superficial and misleading.
Let us look at some examples. ‘Liberals’ versus ‘conservatives. ‘Liberal’ was once an honourable word to describe those who put ‘liberty’ first. However, in many cases, political parties have used the liberal label to steamroll over those in society who still believe in values based, for instance, on the importance of constantly supporting families for the long-term well-being of society.
‘Conservative’ sometimes describes one who wants to preserve the status quo. The near dogmatic commitment to free market political thinking in the last four decades still has many supporters. Still, others doubt its relevance, especially in the context of the challenges Western democracies are currently facing after COVID and the ongoing Ukraine war.
Mediocre political leaders and their diehard acolytes simply pigeonhole others in a fashion that may be quick and convenient but is mostly superficial and misleading
It is time to abandon the labels of liberal and conservative and talk about pragmatic politics, the kind that ordinary people associate with measures that will improve their lives without promising heaven on earth.
European democracies’ favourite labels are ‘centre-right’, ‘centre-left’, ‘hard-right’ and ‘hard-left’ and ‘populist’. But do ordinary people trust these labels anymore?
In some countries, politicians use even more creative labels, such as ‘moderate’. In Italy, there is a splinter party called ‘Noi moderati’. The middle-of-the-road electorate remains the holy grail that traditional parties keep chasing.
The newer politicians, often labelled as ‘populists,’ exploit the historical strongholds of the old established parties.
French President Emanuel Macron, who once promised to reform French politics, declared a political holy war against the far-right National Rally that did so well in the latest European Parliament elections. He wants the centre parties of the right and the left to unite against the common enemy. Will this help make increasingly cynical French voters buy into Macron’s newfound enthusiasm for making traditional political discourse relevant for most people?
Maybe we need a new set of labels, as the old ones have become irrelevant. Or perhaps we need to acknowledge that shorthand will not do the job when you are talking about how complex economic and social developments in the last few decades that are affecting current day realities that ordinary people are experiencing.
European political leaders must find more meaningful ways to communicate with the people, with fewer sound bites, less rhetoric, and single-word monikers. They must stop using one-size-fits-all descriptions but rather describe traits and tendencies as they arise.
We need to address the tensions created by those in the electorate who are satisfied with sterile rhetoric versus those who demand transformational change. We need to categorise our political leaders’ thinking between those who are happy with short-term answers versus those who plan for the long term, even if they risk being voted out of power if they do so.
We must discard the hackneyed and increasingly confusing or irrelevant labels of current political jargon. Many ordinary people realise that the political ideas worth supporting are those that do not mortgage the future for the sake of the present.
Ultimately, the ideas worth supporting are those that unite the community rather than treat political adversaries as scrap paper waiting to be cleared away.