Pluralism

I have written many paragraphs concerning the meta-ideology of populism so it is only right that I do the same for pluralism. This for me is the only meta-ideology we have for maintaining the best aspects of representative democracy. Pluralism recognizes that a society of any size will inevitably encompass a plethora of opinions. None of them will have a monopoly on the whole truth and many of them must be factored into political decision-making.

Pluralism involves turning towards close rivals while curbing the influence of ones own more dogmatic political relations. This could be dismissed as mere centrism but it is better understood as a dispostion rather than a position and can be shared by several distinct ideological stances that can accept one another. Pluralism then is centripetal and prefers integration over seperatism.

In my old politics test any of the first seven positions described here can work well within the context of pluralism. They can be understood as the 'hub and innermost ring' of my model (described under Big Picture). The 'intermediate ring' is best handled with care but may serve as a pressure valve for those whose temperament would hamper practical politics. Finally the 'outermost ring' is to be shunned in all instances. The dogmas promoted by political cults must be rejected while offering those drawn into them a way back into a shared civic life.

Engagment is important. Paying attention to what someone is truly saying matters. Knowing the difference between an extremist and someone whose utterances simply anger you is a worthwhile skill. Too much curbing of discussion only lets cultish thinking grow in isolation. A framework of respect allows for robust interactions and productive discussions. Recognition of complexity brings one incrementally closer to grasping the reality beyond simplistic narratives.

The term 'pluralism' originally descibed the political processes of numerous pressure groups engaging with the two big tent parties in the United States. Any number of interests and demographics could organize to lobby members of those two oversized combines. I have qualms with a two-party model and note that the same process works well or better with several parties. Too few parties result in overly generic policy platforms half-heartedly promoted by much-fragmented camps. Too many parties result in a dizzying array of narrowly focused causes and interests and ego-projects that would work better as pressure groups. The option of several parties each defined by a distinct ideology that can intereact in shifting and changing alliances offers both clarity and flexibility to voters and the politicians that serve them.

This indeed exists in much of the world and seems like the most mature framework we have. It can be bolstered by particular electoral methods (consider proportional representation) alongside an inclusive civic culture. There is a problem however - both parties and the many non-government organizations that define pluralism have been losing members for decades now (something I discussed here). What can be done?

I will admit to more than a hint of nostalgia here. But history is characterized by both trends and counter-trends. We have been drifting into populist ways for over a decade now but if we experience too much of that then we could swing back the other way. Even now there are hints of that in elections and parliamentary re-alignments across the world. But it is all very much in the balance. Balance seems like a worthwhile thing till you are told that what you are teetering over is a precipice. Practicing those aspects of pluralism we still have (and there are plenty) is my only suggestion for now.