Peering beyond election punditry
There's lots of commentary on election outcomes, but not so much on looking beyond winners and losers
A temptation for futurists is to become a pundit of the present. Commenting with certitude about what is the meaning of current events and developments – be they technological, political, environmental, or social.
A futurist’s role is to help connect the present to the past and to facilitate deeper consideration of how both could shape the future, or futures. Less prophet, more provocateur.
There are plenty of hot takes, as well as more reasoned discussions, about the results of the US Presidential Election. Most of that is punditry-as-usual, focussed on details rather than a bigger picture. The former is about what was done well, what went wrong, how the loser could win next time, and what does it all mean.
The bigger issue is that the times are changing, both for politics and the societies that sustain the political system. So instead of fixating on how to win (again) in the current system, we should be looking at how the system is, or should be, changing.
More voters around the world are becoming dissatisfied with the political status quo. Looking beyond some of the punditry two things stand out for me.
Giving status quo ante a turn
Firstly, economically and socially, many are feeling disenfranchised with traditional right- or left-wing parties. Their quality of life isn’t improving, and in some cases it is getting worse even as the wealthy get wealthier. Parties either try middle-of-the-road political platitudes designed to upset the least number of voters, or they go for the extremes to attract the most disaffected.
Meanwhile there is public ennui with the mainstream managerial approach – a restructure here, a tweak there, but many of the same policy deckchairs.
As we have seen this is leading to a rejection of what’s been regarded as acceptable political competence and behaviour, sometimes, in favour of an ill-defined “change” vibe and a shift from stability to instability. The status quo doesn’t work, so more are thinking let’s give status quo ante a turn. So, incumbents are thrown out, as we have been seeing the last two years.
But thinking, as many pundits do, that this phase will pass if inflation falls, migrants are stopped, political messaging is refined, and potholes are promptly filled, is naïve.
At both the middle and the edges what’s on offer are simplistic responses to complex issues. Centrist governments promise to manage their way out, while extremists focus on groups and/or policies to blame and pledge to deal with them.
People, when asked, have a range of ideas for how democracy can be improved. However, what they say and how they vote can be quite different. Competence, a focus on the many not the few, and a greater diversity of backgrounds and experience in politicians all rank highly in public surveys. But look at some of those who get (re)elected.
The World Bank recently examined what the future of governments could look like (“governments” is considered broadly, and includes institutions and regulatory systems as well as those controlling the finances and setting the policies). They noted that citizens will increasingly expect governments to address more challenging objectives. And, with greater financial constraints, governments will need to re-imagine their roles and how they deliver. While also rebuilding trust that has been eroding over the last two decades. Their report notes that it won’t be easy or quick for governments to change.
Voters don’t, usually, want to face hard choices where they may lose out over the short-term, especially when they don’t trust politicians and bureaucracies. So, politicians avoid making those hard choices and promises too.
New wedges in traditional political identities
The second point is that while there is recognition that the world is changing, political parties, certainly those in the centre, seem to continue to see their potential constituents as relatively static and discrete groups. Policies tailored to as many of their different interests as feasible is the name of their political game.
But this ignores the dynamism of individuals and groups, and how views and alliances are changing as the world around us does.
“The economic and social dividing lines that dominated political debate until recently no longer apply”. Politico
For example, far right groups are now adopting environmental issues as a focus, potentially creating new political alliances:
Across the country, fear and tension about environmental threats were boiling beneath the surface. The people I spoke with largely said that climate change was real and urgent. In their hands it became a weapon to justify their agendas — or at least a useful tool to expand their movements. Some were struggling under the concussions of wildfires and drought. They believe that water and land are becoming scarcer, forcing them to hoard and defend those resources.
… The intensifying economic and environmental pressures of the warming climate are now beginning to drive new wedges into old divisions.
In Europe too, farmer protests have attracted the interests of far-right groups and conspiracy theorists, where some overlapping beliefs drive closer engagements.
“… there has been a “cross-contamination of different types of extremism” among some actors in the German and Dutch protests.” Léonie de Jonge
Paul Spoonley emphasised that New Zealand hasn’t been immune to a growing conspiratorial mindset, and opportunistic alliances. Though until the 2022 Parliament grounds’ occupation it was largely overlooked. It also helped forge connections between disparate groups.
COVID gave new impetus to these movements, partly because the pandemic fed many of the now well-established tropes of those inclined to believe in conspiracies – the role of China, government “overreach”, the influence of international organisations like the UN or WHO, or the “malign” influence of experts or institutions.
In addition, both politicians and the public are quick to label themselves or others – “Greenie”, “Fascist”, “Christian”, “Marxist”, “Vermin”, “Woke”, “Snowflake”, etc. This sustains the “them” vs “us” perspective, making “them” easy to dismiss or denigrate without seeking to engage or understand.
However, increasing polarisation is more likely driven by disappointment rather than hatred, and labels obscure that.
“… the nature of the ideological relationship is ambivalent and complex, as members of opposing groups simultaneously hold roles as both ideological adversaries and fellow citizens within a common nation and society.”
In current politics it is too easy to nurture the hatred, rather than meaningfully address disappointment. Oversimplifying voter interests and problems creates a vicious cycle of polarisation and failure. This cycle needs to be broken. Both politicians (and those aspiring to be) and (potential) voters need to adapt.
Voters will need to try to put some of their self-interests and prejudices to one side so that politicians can see they have a mandate for making harder choices for long term improvements. Political leaders will need to emerge that can communicate that the road of change is hard, show a way to travel it for the collective good, and to demonstrate that progress is being made. Whether these all happen is still anyone’s guess, though I can but hope.