Four types of political participants: Which type are you?

Generally, it is assumed that there are three types of political participants: supporters, opponents, and independents. But I feel there are four, based on what I see on social media and in real life, I divide supporters into four groups. According to me, the four groups are as follows:

1. Hardcore supporters: These are the core base or the most loyal voters of any political party. These people support the party no matter what, they believe in the ideology of the party and are the most conservative core of the party who up their loyalty to the party and its leaders ahead of anything else, even their country. These supporters don't care whether the acts of their political leaders are moral or immoral, they are not bothered about corruption, internal democracy, nepotism, dynasty, or anything happening within their own party, that is, they don't see any difference between their religion and political affiliation. Many of them are willing to die or kill someone for the sake of political leaders and parties.

2. Hardcore opponents: These are the ones who oppose some political party no matter what. They do not see any merit in any of the actions of their opponents, their whole purpose is to attack the opponent, no matter what. This habit creates an amazing spectacle where someone is attacking another for doing the same thing that they did when they were in power.

It is no surprise that these two groups often include the same people, that is, hardcore supporters of one party are often hardcore opponents of their opposition. These are the people who flock for rallies, they participate in communal or other riots, defend their leaders no matter what, or attack their opponents no matter what. Nowadays some of them even become party spokespersons and appear in TV debates to create some drama and excitement for their support base.

3. Loyal supporters: This is an interesting category. They are the type of person who might question the party that they support, might oppose some of their actions, or occasionally even express dissent, but in the end, they stand with their party. They cannot see themselves supporting any other party. They are not the ones who participate in riots or physical alterations for their party, but they are the ones who justify these things as much as they can in their posts on social media or TV debates. Some of them are labeled as "intellectuals." These people design very interesting and intelligent rationales to justify the support and actions of their party. Many of these do not have mass appeal, but parties need such people to look mature and sophisticated, and these people also need some platform to broadcast their views. Some loyal supporters are the silent ones, they really do not bother to comment or say much, if they do speak or comment, they do it occasionally, but as far as their support is concerned it is solidly aligned with one political party.

4. Independents: These people do not have any fixed political ideology. They do have their principles and ideas but the problem is that they cannot find a single party that subscribes to their ideas. These people like some ideas from each political party but disagree with some core ideological issues of each party. They often offer their support based on what they feel is the most important issue for them during that election cycle. These are also the people who get trolled by the hardcore supporters of every party because they are bound to criticize each one of them at some point.

Now, the most interesting part, political parties do not care about the first three groups. You might ask, Why? Aren't they the most loyal supporters of the party? Yes. However, parties know where the loyalties of these three groups lie. They know that hardcore supporters and loyal supporters are not going to leave them no matter what, and hardcore opponents are not going to join them, no matter what.

Therefore, ideally, independent players can be game-changers, a difference between a win, and a loss. However, the independent players in this game matter only when their support matters in deciding the result of crucial elections. If hardcore and loyal supporters considerably outnumber hardcore opponents and independents combined, why the heck any party will care about the independents, as they are not required to win any elections. For obvious reasons, the party will entirely focus on catering to their support base (the current situation in India).

However, if the opinion of independent voters matters in deciding key elections (like the senate or presidential election), then the parties will try to design their campaign that does not drift too much towards either right or left (the current situation in the US).

The readers must understand that this is not a scientific analysis or hypothesis. It is quite possible that people can switch their political allegiance if they want and whenever they want. So, which type of political participant you are? Remember, it's not an easy analysis, many love to declare themselves as independent, but fail to behave like independents when it matters.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.

Is it possible to be neutral and political at the same time?

The topic of this post also originated from one of my Facebook discussions. One of my Facebook friends wondered if one can be neutral and support any political party or ideology? According to me, definitely one can. It's really a tough balance to strike, no doubt about it, but it's possible. Being neutral doesn't necessarily mean being politically inactive, one can choose to remain politically inactive, and nothing wrong with it, however, being neutral about one's opinions does not make someone by default politically inactive. Voting is one of the fundamental rights of citizens of any democratic country. While voting, one has to choose from the given options, this is how it works. Nowadays, in many places, there is an option for a write-in candidate (you can write the name of the candidate which you think is more suitable but not on the ballot), or NOTA (none of the above), but realistically, these options rarely make any difference. A neutral person can support a political party or vote for a particular candidate irrespective of her or his party. The only difference is that just because she voted for them such a person does not stop questioning or opposing whenever she feels there is a deviation from the agenda based on which she offered her support. Rather, such people are the first ones to ask for accountability and transparency, raise concerns, offer constructive criticism, and keep up the pressure. This is healthy for democracy. When a voter of any political party or a leader asks for accountability or raises difficult questions that party or a leader has to listen to those voices. The risk of losing an election is one of the biggest motivators for a political entity to take action. 

It is common to ignore criticism coming from opponents as the perception is they will criticize no matter what, that is why it is important to have a pressure group within the party that keeps an eye on what's going on. This means neutral voters or independent voters have a bigger role to play in politics than supporters of any political party or leader. There has to be a substantial number of independent voters to create this pressure otherwise populist politics is going to overtake. This is what's going on in many parts of the world where a certain political leader, party, or ideology has a massive fan following resulting in unilateral political discourse. In this situation, neither opposition nor independent voices matter much as they do not have any influence on the electoral outcome. That is why if you have an independent voice, and protect your independence, occasionally, you might feel isolated or out of place, but cherish that independence as it's neither a common thing nor easy to achieve. Be politically active without being bothered by the political undercurrents, and make sure to connect with right-minded people so that your voice is loud enough to register its presence. In any real democracy dissent or neutral voices are encouraged, if not, it's not a real democracy yet.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.

Are we getting too political on social media?

There is no doubt that social media has changed the way we communicate in today's world. I don't think anytime in the history of humans, there was a time when so much of our communication was in a written form rather than in a spoken form. The easy availability of the internet and smartphones has made social media accessible to many, and this has revolutionized the way we share our views with each other. A vast number of people are connected with each other via the internet than any other medium before. This number is huge compared to what telephone or radio managed to connect when they were at their peak. Various social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram have made instant broadcasting of information very easy. Today, we can broadcast any event of our life if we want to do so, and there is an audience for it from all over the world. I also notice that people are more eager than ever to share with the world what's going on in their lives, and the concept of privacy is not the same as it was just a decade ago. Many gigabytes of data about our textual, audio, or video are generated every moment and stored in various places in the cloud. We don't even know where are our footprints on the internet, it is impossible to track them. This is all a recent phenomenon, we still don't know the pros and cons of this. Eventually, we should be able to figure this out in the coming years, but for the time being, we all are witnessing this explosion of data generation and sharing.

Another thing that I noticed is how much people discuss politics on social media. I see that many friends from my Facebook friend post only something related to politics on their personal walls. No doubt, politics is an important part of our lives as it affects all of us. It is also important to share our political opinions and voice our views on various political and social matters. But, if all we share is our political opinion and nothing else, then that conversation becomes extremely monotonous and boring, and nothing remains surprising in our posts as most people know what are our political views and what are we going to post based on our political leanings. Such postings might help in initiating some fierce political discussions or arguments, but definitely, they don't help to expand our social circle or to have some meaningful conversations on social media. Such repeated political postings make our social media account look like an unofficial mouthpiece of some political party or leader. It seems that for many people there is nothing worthwhile to discuss apart from politics on social media. This trend really bothers me a lot, this is one of the reasons why I reduced my presence on Facebook. 

I do recognize the relevance and use of social media in keeping in touch with friends and relatives with whom it is impossible to interact in person. This is why I joined all these platforms and I am still active on most of them. Social media is of great help to bridge the distance gap and makes it possible to interact with people who are miles apart from us. I wish people use it to discuss various other things apart from politics. I want to have meaningful conversations about other issues as well, I want people to be less political and more social on social media. Let politicians discuss only politics, it is their profession and they have a job to do. We are not professional politicians and our social media posts should show this diversity. We need to be conscious about not becoming the unofficial spokesperson of any political party. This might also help to reduce the spread of fake news and rumors through social media. The increasing political nature of social media makes it possible for some people to use it to spread fake news and disturb social harmony. Only vigilant and alert social media users can stop such misuse, let's be more social and less political.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

Is it possible to be politically independent in today's world?

The current political environment in most countries is very polarized. I can speak about the USA and India as I follow political scenarios in these two countries more than any other country in the world. Both these countries are democracies, but the current political atmosphere is so charged and polarized it is almost impossible to remain independent and try to have a balanced and rational political discussion with any political party supporter. Most supporters of any party or leader are so passionate and blindly in love with their leader that they are not willing to hear anything even remotely against their leader. These people are very eager to brand their opponents anti-nationals, communal, secular (the term secular used in a derogatory way), racist, Islamophobic, misogynist, or by any other tag they can think of.  Because of these two things have happened, political discussions have become either like fist fights, where two parties fight against each other blow by blow without having any fruitful exchange of thoughts or it has become almost devotee like the singing of praise of their demigod leader, where every good thing happening around is attributed to some action taken by that leader.

Politically independent people, who can throw light on both sides of the issue, or can debate over the good and bad aspects of the same policy, political party, or leader have disappeared from these discussions. I understand why they don't want to participate in any such political arguments. But, these debates are so predictable and boring because of an absence of any sane voice among all political devotees. Such devotees are required, and all political leaders and parties survive and thrive due to the presence of such devoted supporters. However, the presence of such supporters only makes that party gain or lose elections, it doesn't help in moving political discourse any forward. In such a politically charged atmosphere, very often there is a possibility of political deadlock, where both sides try to block even good policies from each other just to display their political muscle power. The interest of the country or its people takes a back seat and that leader's ego or interest of that party's core voters becomes the most prominent factor. These things used to happen in the past also, but now it is happening even after an increase in the education level of people and an increase in accessibility of information due to the rapid spread of the internet.

I am a politically independent person. I don't support a single political party or a leader. In an election, of course, I have to choose one from the list, and I make my decision based on the important issues of that time and solutions presented by different parties, but at the same time, I know the weaknesses and drawbacks of my choice. I am willing to accept that the party for which I voted might have some terrible policies about certain economic and social issues, but in an election, you can vote only for one party, and not voting is not an option for me. If the party I voted for wins the election, then I should be ready to oppose any policy they try to implement that is either not on their agenda or is obviously harmful to a certain section of society. I am not obliged to support whatever they do, just because I voted for him. This is how I deal with politics. I don't think political parties would like to have voters like me, but this is how I protect my political independence. I am not bound by their core ideologies or their leader's demigod-like status. Current politics has become so personality-centric that it has become like a war between two cults.

Whenever I discuss politics in any group, I can see the desperation of people to defend their choices at any cost and their frustration when someone exposes weaknesses of their side or starts asking some uncomfortable questions. I am a republican sympathizer in a democrat group and vice versa. I play a similar role in India among BJP or Congress supporters. Politics is supposed to be there for the benefit of people. It is supposed to create healthy debates and discussions where something better for the nation comes out from such debates. It was not supposed to create a war-like situation within a country or a deadlock where the nation is stuck in policy paralysis, where nothing moves forward except vicious verbal attacks on each other. None of these things are healthy for any nation. Political differences and strong opposition should exist and no government should get an absolute right to do whatever they want. Every democratic country needs to have some checks and balances to curtail absolute power. The presence of a single ideology is dangerous no matter how good or rational that ideology sounds. I hope people understand the value and importance of dissent. I hope they understand that expressing dissent against the government doesn't mean that they are against the country. If a country needs to progress all of its people need to contribute, and political opponents need to have space for ideological or policy-based differences. Political opponents should not behave like enemies of each other and their existence should not be mutually exclusive. Politics needs healthy and efficient dialogue between different stakeholders. It doesn't benefit from monotonous, and vitriolic monologs.

I cherish my political independence and I am really proud of it. It is becoming a very rare trait day by day. I hope people understand the importance of constructive criticism and healthy dialog, until that this drama will continue and people like me won't find any difference between some news channels and channels that telecast dramatic soap operas. Protect your political independence if you can, and even if you become a supporter of some political party become a sensible supporter, not a blind devotee. Politics is not a place to be a devotee, for this religion is enough. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing.]

Drawbacks of having politically polarized society

Political polarization is on the rise all over the world. In many countries, especially in the USA and India, we can feel that the political rift between major political parties is widening day by day. I don't think this is a very desirable development. Political differences are part of any healthy democratic setup, there is nothing wrong with debating any topic, but when it takes the form of strong animosity then it not only creates a very politically charged environment for politically relevant issues but also very trivial things turn into big political battles. A lot of energy and resources are wasted arguing about some trivial issues. This also creates extreme bitterness among general public who feel compelled to fight these battles to support their political organization. Ultimately this leads to serious political deadlock. As a result of all this many important issues get sidetracked or they get stuck between political deadlocks as no party is interested in a compromise because of fear of hurting the sentiments of their core supporters. Whereas political opposition, debates, discussions, and arguments are necessary, political polarization is not a very productive atmosphere for any country. It is impossible to achieve any substantial progress in such an environment. We can feel the effect of this in both countries where many important issues are stuck in serious political deadlock, all we see is an endless blame game.

Why too much political polarization is bad for any country? How does it affect its population and governance? These are the questions we need to ask to understand the detrimental effect of this phenomenon. Any political ideology has some core principles on which they are not willing to compromise at all, that is why we have different political groups. Many times these issues are part of the basic political identity of those political parties, this is why we give them labels like leftist, rightist or centrist, conservative or liberal, socialist or capitalist, etc. There are many issues on which bipartisan collaboration is possible as most political parties agree on some of these topics that are not part of their core political agenda. But in a politically polarized atmosphere supporters and leaders of these political parties create a war-like situation where each and every issue, no matter how trivial or relevant, becomes a matter of serious conflict and political prestige. They become more interested in defeating their opponents at any cost rather than working in collaboration to achieve something better for their country. Any sensible person can agree that this is not a very desirable situation. We all should recognize that political opposition is necessary, it is an integral part of any democratic setup. We all should not only expect that alternate views and ideas exist but should create an atmosphere where people are not scared to express their views. The ability to express dissent is a very important aspect of any democratic setup. If we curb this for any reason then this is bound to hamper the progress of any society, country, or organization. The health of any society can be measured by the extent it allows the free flow of ideas. When there are incidents where people get arrested under the charge of sedition just for delivering some speech or a political rally of some leader gets disrupted just because some people don't agree with the views expressed by that leader then it is a matter of concern. When public perception takes precedence over the law of the land then democracy starts getting suffocated. Political opponents should not be treated as enemies of the nation, especially when you are in power. Some people in the US may not agree with many views expressed by Mr.Trump but he has the right to express them like anyone else. The US Constitution gives him that right, one can express disagreement in the strongest possible words but to disrupt his rallies or try to shut him up or his supporters is not the right way to express the disagreement. Indians should be proud of their heritage of argumentative traditions, but somehow today people seem to be more interested in settling scores against each other rather than discussions and debates. Let's go back to healthy political debates. We should debate and discuss each and very thing but in a civilized matter. Let's try to bring sensibility, rational, common sense, and patience back on discussion tables, this is the only way to progress.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]