Why do we have Left-Wing and Right-Wing as the only two political choices?
An exploration on why certain ideologies coalesce into two competing schools of thought.
Humans are reactionary beings. We like to respond to actions of others in a manner which makes us safe and immune from any conceivable loss or damage. This basic evolutionary trait has defined much of our history — from royal battles to mass revolutions, from installing and toppling governments to making landmark shifts in policies — all of these have been a result of a group of people reacting to an imminent danger by taking a polar opposite position from the rival. And thus over the years, we have witnessed a constant cleaving of the polity, of the society and of economic schools of thought, where each half differs from the other on some key questions and competes for space and survival.
Left-wing vs. Right-wing
In the modern world, one such stark contestation is the battle between ‘Left-wing’ and ‘Right-wing’. Most of our political debates and economic discussions, particularly in the West but increasingly in the East as well, revolve around these broad ideologies and the ideas embodied within them. Is Capitalism evil? Why does a political party resort to minority appeasement? Are welfare schemes and ‘freebies’ actually prudent governance choices? Such questions regularly dominate our discourse.
Certain institutions, schools, political parties and think tanks identify themselves with either ‘Left-wing’ or ‘Right-wing’ depending upon their leanings. We see a marked distinction in a two-party democracy like the US where Democrats are said to be on the Left while Republicans toe toward the Right end of the political, social and economic spectrum. Even in a multi-party democracy such as India, certain parties like the BJP and Shiv Sena are roughly classified into Right-wing while the Congress, CPI and TMC are said to constitute the Left-wing of the country.
What is Left and Right? And how did the terms originate?
The definition of Left-wing and Right-wing has evolved since the time they were first used. In 1789, when members of the National Assembly of France convened to write a new constitution for the post-revolution order, the ‘conservatives’ who favoured to retain the powers of the King sat towards the right of the Assembly’s President, while the ‘radicals’ who wanted a new political system sat towards the left side. Over the years, the seating arrangement of members became synonymous with their political leanings, and as French Revolution made headlines around the world, the terms Left and Right began to be used by other political groups and institutions to identify where they stood.
Today, these terms have expanded their umbrella beyond politics, to include economics and society under their wings. A ‘Left-wing’ group is generally considered to be supportive of Minority rights, believe in a Socialist or Communist economy, and bat for a liberal society where individual rights and freedom are secured. A ‘Right-wing’ group, on the other hand, is considered to be a cheerleader of the rights of the Majority, believe in a Capitalistic, free-market economy, and lean towards preserving the traditional and more conservative values of a society. This matrix clearly lays out the ideologies encapsulated by each wing:
Why do these ideologies coalesce under Left-wing and Right-wing?
A cursory glance at the above matrix gives no clue as to why these seemingly independent belief systems get grouped into Left and Right. After all, what could Capitalism possibly have in common with conservative thinking? Why are liberals also some of the more vociferous supporters of minority rights and welfare schemes for the poor?
Privilege
The answer requires us to dig deeper. If you look closely, at the foundation of each ideology is the type of groups and people whom the ideology tries to protect and promote. All the belief systems under Left-wing, for instance, protect the interests of the less-privileged — the minorities, the poor and the individuals. Whereas, the ideologies classified under Right-wing seek to promote the interests of the more-privileged — the majority, the rich and the collectivist society. Ultimately, the division of ideologies under Right and Left comes down to standing up for the rights of the fortunate vs. the unfortunate, the competent vs. the unskilled, and those doing good in their lives vs. those not doing so good in their lives.
Chaos vs. Order
Another basis for this classification is the preference for chaos and diversity vs. order and homogeneity. Most adherents of Left-wing system support diversity in population and workforce, a set of loose and lenient rules which protect individuality and cherish differences among people, and a constant urge to move towards more progressive values — even if all of it leads to a chaotic social and economic setup. On the contrary, a Right-wing system tends to impose strict laws upon its people to ensure conformity of thought, uniformity in the demographics of the country where everyone looks like everyone else, and an irresistible urge to clutch onto the old, well-established values of family, society and religion.
Therefore, we see the Left-leaning and Right-leaning parties always finding each other on the opposite end on issues like whether to allow immigrants to enter and mingle in the country, whether to ban abortion and contraceptives to uphold the sanctity of marriage and family, whether homosexual and transgender communities should have equal rights and favourable laws to prevent discrimination, or whether to allow menstruating women to enter temples in defiance of scriptures. This bundling of ideas within Left and Right is the reason why a Arundhati Roy only speaks about the downtrodden farmers, the disenfranchised working class, the misfit transgenders, and the helpless minorities in a country dominated by its bullying majority. And this classification is also the reason why a Ayn Rand advocates the supremacy of only the rich and capable industrialists, the skilled engineers and architects who build the world, and the ‘civilised’ White community who has every right over the resources of the ‘savage’ and ‘primitive’ Natives.
Polarisation induces polarisation
Yes. This law of physics is universally applicable, even to human behaviour. When the two competing schools of thought see each other as rivals, any tiny step by one ideology towards extremism is viewed as a dangerous threat by the other ideology, forcing it to move towards the other extreme side. When Industrial Revolution in Europe creates an alarming imbalance of power between the factory-owning capitalists and the working-class masses, the foundations of a revolutionary communist system are laid by Karl Marx. When minority appeasement reaches at such an alarming level that a satirical book on Prophet Muhammad is banned as it offended few Muslims, and alimony laws are framed in accordance with Sharia to deny Muslim divorced women maintenance, a counter Ram-Janmabhoomi movement emerges which promises to establish a Hindu supremacy state where minorities are no longer placated. And when the local White Americans begin to feel that not only their jobs are being usurped by immigrants, but also their culture of guns, slavery and traditional gender roles is under threat by excessively liberal, Left-leaning policies, they elect a Trump to turn everything upside down, at any cost.
Side-effects of polarisation
Of course, such polarisation and such rigid bracketing of ideologies under Left and Right is not the most efficient way to run a country. When the allegiances become so sacrosanct that we blindly follow the school of thought without even looking at the ideas of the other side, we lose out on the best practices and end up with a partly dysfunctional system. And at times, the best practices are found neither on the Left nor on the Right, but somewhere in the middle, at the Centre. For example under the Right-wing, while Capitalism has proved to be a wealth-creating system which has uplifted billions out of poverty, majoritarianism under the same Right-wing is a source for spreading inequality and irrational discrimination among people. And even within Capitalism, there are instances where a pure, unbridled implementation can give rise to monopolies, lobbying and ultimately oligarchy; while a more moderate form of Capitalism can prove sustainable and still create wealth for almost everyone.
Is there an alternative?
Hence, there is a pressing need today for governments, political parties and entrepreneurs to shun the rigorous binaries of Left and Right, and explore a more needs-based approach to run an organisation or country. Perhaps the world needs a third alternative: a Centre-wing or a Hybrid-wing. This author thinks that such a system would comprise of a secular government which wouldn’t unduly favour either the majority or the minority, a moderately Capitalistic economic system and a liberal social order. Of course, the extent to which the system needs Capitalism to flourish or liberalism to penetrate would need to be extensively debated and iterated over several times. But such an order is more likely to provide the best outcomes to the people, unshackled from the legacy chains of Left-wing and Right-wing.
It is, then, upon us to take a step back from our isolated islands of ideologies, and look towards finding a meeting ground. Hopefully, that will put an end to our extremely draining and intensely polarising everyday debates where each side sits on its high horse and refuses to budge.
(An abridged version of this article was selected as the Bonus Prize Winner by India Writing Project Season 2. You can read the winning entry here)
