A political party’s name used to be sufficient to let people know what it was. One was Labour and the other free markets. One was a proponent of secularism and the other a conservative. Their differences were not only over the question of who should rule, but also the structure of society.
That is no longer a certainty in today’s day and age.
In many parts of the globe, political parties are getting elected on slogans that will stick with them in the minds of the electorate, but the ideologies of a party are very thin and hard to come by. Campaigns are about personalities, management not philosophy, and about problems to be solved in the here and now, not future aspirations. Those who used to have a definite position on an ideological terrain are now taking into their own policy that of their competitor, moving away from their so-called beliefs and policies that they had for the last 20 years, and re-inventing themselves with nothing but a few clicks of a mouse between elections.
There is no politics that has left. But ideology is slipping away, unobtrusively, it would appear.
This change is no exception to a single country. In Europe, as well as in Latin America, South Asia, and North America, voters are increasingly being confronted by political parties that make promises of change, but don’t necessarily make these promises with an accompanying political vision. Manifestos become shorter, slogans are keener, and election campaigns are more like marketing than battling for an ideology.
This change is an important one in the expectations of political parties.
In the past, parties formed prior to elections were formed from ideas. Liberalism called for a system of government by constitution and for the liberty of the individual. Socialism raised the issue of economic inequality. The message of Conservatism was one of continuity and tradition, institutional stability. National movements were on the issue of sovereignty and self-determination. It was no longer just leaders whom citizens were joining, but also a philosophy on the role of the state, the economy, and society.
The compass was “ideology.” Not all the questions were answered, but it gave some direction.
Things work in politics in a different way in the modern world.
Some political parties try to create wide electoral coalitions without taking a stance on any issues, for fear of losing potential voters. Instead of trying to present a broad worldview to the citizens, many parties attempt to build wider electoral coalitions by avoiding speaking on anything that might offend a potential party member. The outcome is political flexibility — one of the virtues that campaign advisors hold in high regard, and one that critics have decried from the political theoretical side.
There are not many words that have emerged more in vogue than pragmatism.
There are some virtues to pragmatism. Governments have to adjust to new realities and not be stuck in dogma. Times of economic crisis, pandemic, technological revolution, and climate change require solutions with a practical outlook — one that is not always given by ideology. No one wants to be politically irrelevant, and if a party is unwilling to adjust its old policies, it will not be politically relevant.
But there is a difference between adaptability and an ideology vacuum.
If policy is not accompanied by a guiding philosophy, it can become more of an improvisation. Decisions seem to be made out of the blue and not based on any principle. Party members may know which policies they are against, but not agree on what they are for.
The Case of Pakistan
This is illustrated with Pakistan as an example.
Instead of ideological programmes, it is more characteristic of its major political parties to differ with respect to leadership, historical legacy, governance records, or electoral stories. For example, aspects of accountability, economic recovery, development projects, or institutional reform are often a focus during election campaigns — these are important goals, but ones that are not, in and of themselves, a prerogative of one political philosophy.
In this way, the opposition parties can make seemingly similar promises, but with their own slightly different take on how to deliver.
This is an indication of the fluid nature of Pakistan’s political environment. Political factors like coalition governments, regional demands and relations, security issues, economic pressures, and shifting voter preferences can promote a degree of flexibility over ideology. Politics is no longer a matter of standing up for some abstract idea, but one of dealing with current issues.
The Rise of Catch-All Parties
This is no longer a phenomenon that is confined to Pakistan.
More and more political scientists are using the term “catch-all parties” to describe political parties that attempt to appeal to as much of the electorate as possible, and are not clearly defined by a social class or an ideology. These parties aren’t targeting workers, business owners, or even religious communities — they’re targeting people across lines of difference, using a type of messaging that is more finely tuned.
They aren’t looking to political correctness; they’re looking for votes.
This has been speeded up by the advent of technology.
Simple is king in the realm of social media. While policy debates may be long, algorithms act on emotionally resonant messages, not policy. A campaign video is far more effective in reaching people than a detailed manifesto if it is only 30 seconds in length. Real-time monitoring of public opinion by consultants enables parties to tweak their rhetoric almost in real time. Political communication is more and more like the marketing of consumers, where the priority is more on responsiveness than consistency.
The voter also has changed.
Political allegiance was often passed down from generation to generation for the most part in terms of family, class, religion, and region. Today’s voters are a lot more flexible. They change loyalties easily, look at the person who should be leading rather than at the ideology, and are more concerned with issues like inflation, jobs, health, and corruption than with any ideologies.
Political parties have responded as appropriate.
Ideology Versus Pragmatism
This evolution has been criticised as taking away democratic accountability. When parties have no clear ideology, how is it that voters should gauge when policies are changing? In the case of prosperity, transparency, and opportunity being touted by both big parties, elections can lose their meaning to become a contest of personalities.
However, there is another point of view on the topic from supporters.
They argue that too much ideology has led to political paralysis in the past. Governments with dogma can find themselves in a situation where their response to economic change or changing public expectations is hindered. They say that flexible parties are more capable of ruling over societies that are diverse, and there’s no point in compromising.
There are two truths to both arguments.
History offers cautionary lessons in terms of ideological extremism and the consequences of doctrinal zeal, which is associated with repression, conflict, and the failure of economies. History also tells us that change was also brought about by parties with clear-cut ideological convictions, such as the reform of universal education, civil rights, and welfare systems.
It is not a question of ideology versus pragmatism, but rather balancing both. It’s holding on to enough conviction to give it direction, and yet having enough flexibility to face reality.
Or perhaps the more important question is: why is it that politics can ever cease to be “post-ideological”?
All other parties, even those who do not subscribe to conventional party labels, make assumptions with regard to taxation, markets, welfare, national identity, individual liberty, or the role of the state. These assumptions are political decisions in and of themselves. As a rule, the label of “non-ideological” is given to the ones who are not avowedly taking on a specific philosophy without being specific.
Politics, the practice of government administration, is only a part of politics. It is simply a matter of a nation’s choice of the “society” that it wants to be.
Election slogans fade. Campaign advertisements disappear. There are plenty of political players that come and go. Ideas — either expressed or implied — continue to influence public life, institutions, and laws long after the ballots are tallied.
The real question, however, is: do people have political parties with ideologies? The question left is whether or not they can still be identified by the voters under the branding.