Politicization. Polarization. For those who attempted to provide us with an atmospheric analysis of the days surrounding the truck accident, these two words dominated the discourse – politicization and polarization. To them, the two words are obviously meant to denounce the nature and direction of the discourse, as if to say, the discourse must have proceeded on different lines, at different times. It is hyperbolism in excess.
Politicization. What do they mean by this attack?
In my crude estimation, garnered from its proponents, the accusation of politicising the issue may, without exhausting other myriad of possible meanings, refer at least to two things.
First, to the simple fact of the discourse being conducted by politicians. In this sense, the accusation is of course lame, and dangerous, for it seeks to exclude a certain section of the populace from participating in national discourse over vital issues. Since those who face exclusion are the same people whose core business is served by the apparatus of national discourse, this sense cannot be the proper and relevant sense intended.
The second sense is the most credible, perhaps the likely intended sense. When applied in this sense the discourse falls in the hands of politicians and in the course of the discourse politicians use the issue to advance their political interests. It does sound and looks like a morally unacceptable and callous enterprise – to derive and siphon political dividends from the tragic death of children. This appears to be the substance of the accusation.
To avoid this, Martin Dingake, in his article “Tragedy struck, showing our deep seated divisions” in the Gazette argues that “we must be able to see each other’s point of view without necessarily questioning the motive behind it.” It is a weak, if not a needless prescription. Searching for the motives behind expressions is core to formulating comprehensive responses – the surface of speech is not enough.
The trouble with this accusation is its seeming skewedness and bias. When the discourse is handled by other structures, the accusation, and its substance, ceases to exist, even where logic calls for its application.
Take churches. When churches take up issues, nobody complains about “religi-alizing” the issues or pastors using issues to advance their interests. Take businesses. For the first time, businesses showed unprecedented interest in a tragedy, others even offering to purchase coffins for those we lost. There were no accusations of using the tragedy to “advertise.” Instead, it is considered an exercise of social-responsibility and good will.
Why then, is it that when politicians, the very people whose core mandate is shaping policy, making laws and running the State, face this accusation when they take up issues of national interest, such as the death of so many students under such horrific and painful circumstances, evidently brought about by reckless disregard of safety rules?
To me, this concept of politicization of matters is an idea we like to throw about so carelessly, with little or no regard to what it stands for. I have heard it argued by some on the subject of appointment of judges – that to involve too many parties such as Parliament in the process will politicise the process. That is what democracy is about; democracy is about politics and politicization of issues – how is it that all of a sudden politicization is an abomination?
What polarization?
Politicising issues is in its nature a divisive process. Isn’t it an irrational expectation to expect homogeneity of opinion in a democracy? Yes, there are values so fundamental that one expects some measure of consensus but even on those values there are differences. What is so special about sadness that it should bring unity of opinion? The fact that we carry and express different opinions, opinions violently opposed to each other, does not take away our sadness – or stop us from expressing it.
Rather, it helps us to learn from others, to identify differences and breach the gulfs, where we need to. Asking questions, fighting to get answers does not stop us from giving those who have departed the dignity they deserve. The engines of democracy must never stop roaring. It is not evidence of a society that has hit rock-bottom – that way of seeing things lacks an element of reality. If anything, it is evidence of a maturing democracy.
Politicians must speak from their political structures, just as business entities donate from their business coffers, and as pastors deal with some national issues from the altar. If we are going to point fingers, we must point fingers at all of them, and not only select politicians – or else we are being dishonest with ourselves.
Whilst those who make these accusations never care to support their theories with proof (which is understandable as they have none), if politicisation is such a harmful activity in a democracy, what is the alternative? And what forums are available for this alternative? Drawing and painting?
Perhaps it is entirely an issue of morals. Even then, the idea that politicization of an issue like this is an evil in a democratic society does not add up. Morality is a universe of choice – we must allow those individuals to make their own judgments at the risk of being ostracized if the society does not prefer their methods.
Politicians must be at liberty to reap political dividends from any matter or issue. We, the people, are the ones who reward them. The cycle can get toxic and nonsensical – but it is what the system needs. From all of it we may end up with better ideas and that ultimate goal is worth traversing both the good speech and the nonsense we have to bear.