POLARIZATION IN POLITICS

In the world of politics, polarization refers to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Though expected in countries with two political parties like the U.S, where the Democrats and the Republicans rarely see eye to eye, multi party democracies are not immune to it. The B.J.P and the Left and left of centre thinkdom (LLCT remember!) led by Congress in India are two vastly divergent polarized political entities who have a very different vision of India. The LLCT has always used the Muslim minority as an everlasting vote cluster, kept them poor and deprived. They have brain-washed them into believing that their very existence in secular India relied on keeping the right inclined B.J.P out of power. The B.J.P on their part accuses the LLCT of Muslim appeasement and emphasizes that the country cannot prosper if 18% of its population lags behind. It talks of ‘sabka saath sabka vikas’ i.e. ‘we progress with everyone with everyone’s help’ and refuses to offer any undue concession along religious lines. But one thing is undeniable, when polarization occurs in a democracy, moderate voices often lose power and influence and polling along polarized lines often sends the undeserving to the parliament or senate.

Polarization requires divergence on a broad range of issues based on a consistent set of beliefs. Democrats are liberal and left leaning and believe that government regulations are needed to protect consumers. Republicans are conservative and right leaning and believe that government regulations hinder free market capitalism and job growth. Democrats don’t mind taxing the rich while the republicans don’t like taxing anyone and are of the opinion that wages should be set by free market. Democrats support universal healthcare  and strongly support of government involvement in healthcare, whereas Republicans feel that private companies can provide healthcare services more efficiently than government-run programs. Add to this these two parties have differences in military spending, gay marriages, abortions and death penalties.

In India however all parties agree on a wide range of issues – poverty alleviation, urbanization of villages,  military spending, and all of them are guilty of neglecting maternal and child health, education and malnutrition. But there are stark partisan or ideological divides, even if opinion is polarized only on a few issues, or shall I say one issue – minority appeasement. The LLCT can simply not afford to let it go as its very existence depends on polarized minority votes and so paints the B.J.P communal and declares itself as secular. The formula has served them well for seven decades but now the apparitional India has called its bluff and seen through the charade.

Political scientists typically distinguish between two types of political polarization: elite polarization and popular polarization. "Elite polarization" refers to the polarization of political elites, like party organizers and elected officials, while "popular polarization" (or mass polarization) refers to polarization in the electorate and general public. In either context, opinions and policy positions are characterized by strict adherence to party lines.

Popular polarization occurs when the electorate's attitudes towards political issues, policies, and people are starkly divided along partisan lines. Members of the electorate and general public typically become less moderate in cases of popular polarization as was witnessed in the U.S elections this time. Zenophobia and particularly Islamophobia reigned supreme amongst the Republican voters and the most boisterous of them all was chosen the President. This was one occasion when we saw the political polarization of the entire country in a top-down process, in which elite polarization led to - or at least preceded - popular polarization. The white Christian America was reminded again and again that they have to make America great again……..or, did it actually mean white and Christian again!

Yet polarization amongst elites does not necessarily produce polarization within the electorate as was witnessed in the May 2014 Indian elections. So while the LLCT tried its level best to establish their traditional secular and non-secular divide, the voters rejected it and the elite polarization was not translated into popular polarization.  The fact that polarized electoral choices can often reflect elite polarization (resulting in highly polarized policies and candidates) rather than voters' preferences has time and time resulted in political parties choosing disgraceful candidates with a plethora of criminal records for our elections.

But in India now we are seeing the emergence of a new trend. Despite a concerted effort by "secular" parties to get Muslims to vote en bloc against BJP, the saffron challenger prevailed largely because of what is being called "reverse polarization". In the 2014 general elections the B.J.P won Saharanpur, Amroha, Shrawasti, Bijnor, Muzaffarnagar, Moradabad and Rampur, where the Muslim population hovers around 40%. For the first time since Independence, UP has no Muslim MP. The trend was similar in Bihar where out of the 17 seats where Muslims have more than 15% of votes, BJP has won 12. So those who are not a part of the vote bank are now voting in vengeance against the LLCT and this has made them a worried lot.

After politics the media and the judiciary are two institutions that are maximally effected by polarization. The trend of less news and more views has particularly affected the voting public in the last 2 to 3 decades, as previously less partisan viewers are given more polarized news media which in turn are owned by political masters. The mass media’s current, fragmented, high-choice environment has induced a movement of the audience from more even-toned political programming to more antagonistic and one-sided broadcasts and articles. These programs tend to appeal to partisan viewers who watch the polarized programming as a self-confirming source for their ideologies. No wonder Trump calls a majority of American media as ‘fake news’ and B.J.P treats the paid media with contempt and disdain.

It is a fact of history that India’s higher judiciary has intervened at key moments in the country’s public life to safeguard democracy. From preventing the legislature from wantonly amending the Constitution out of shape (by limiting Parliament’s amending power under Article 368) to making an insensitive executive respond to citizens’ needs through public interest litigation, high courts and the Supreme Court have stepped in when our polarized legislatures have failed. But can there be judicial remedies to political decay? The ‘tyranny of the unelected’, as the government chooses to call it, has seen governmental tardiness in filling vacancies in the judiciary, an uncomfortable relationship and a blurring of separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. In the U.S too this relationship is far from cordial as issues like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights capture part of the significance of judicial politics in polarized timesand despite judges’ claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But are judges “tyrants in robes,” undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences? We will never know because this is the price of polarization in politics.