When the French citizens stormed the Bastille in 1789, they planted the seeds of democracy in Europe. Though slow to grow, the ideals flourished after World War II. The core values of the Revolution — liberty, fraternity, and equality — shaped the modern Western nation. But today, authoritarianism, populism, and polarization threaten these ideals. Rising inequality and political divisions strain society. One major cause is the right-left divide, which deepens polarization and makes compromise harder.After the Storming of the Bastille, the National Assembly became the Revolution’s council. A fierce debate erupted over how much power the king should have. On voting day, monarchists sat to the right of the presiding officer, anti-royalists on his left — the “right” and the “left” were born. Difficult to define today, left is often associated with progressivism and right with conservatism.This divide is outdated, as ideological labels can’t solve complex problems. Climate change, mass migration, globalization, capitalism, hyperconnectivity, and mass media didn’t exist in the 18th century. To revive democracy, we need a multi-faceted approach to problem-solving. A post-ideological system, where parties focus on solutions instead of rigid ideologies, offers democracy its best chance to overcome these challenges.
Impossible to Define
What does it mean to be left or right? Is a person against migration but for a welfare state conservative or progressive? The left-right divide oversimplifies political beliefs. The U.S.’s left is Germany’s right. Most democratic countries, however, adopted this simplicity with two or three major parties covering the ideological range. As a result, many voters don’t choose a party based on belief but in opposition to the other side.This binary “for or against” mindset undermines plurality and deepens divisions between voters. Polarization grows when voters defend a party’s ideology, not legislation. Take the U.S., where a Democrat might disagree with their own party’s proposals but still reject Republican ideas — simply out of partisanship. This dynamic fuels populism, as dividing people is easier than finding solutions through compromise.
A Closed Democracy
A post-ideological system would reshape modern politics. Instead of dividing parties along the left and right lines, parties could combine ideas from both sides, creating a more diverse political landscape. For instance, a party might back pro-migration policies and universal healthcare while supporting lower taxes and fewer gun restrictions. Voters wouldn’t choose a party that vaguely reflects their views — they’d find one that truly represents their varied perspectives. Election results would better match citizens’ needs, and as naive party loyalty fades, polarization would ease, reducing populism’s grip.Ultimately, inner-party struggles would decrease as no right-wing or left-wing section in a party would exist. Today, from Germany to Great Britain over the U.S., conflicts between these sections hinder decision-making and a clear stand. Both the opposition and the own party criticize a proposition, slowing down the entire process of legislation-making.
Risks and Requirements
The first step toward a post-ideological system is for citizens to accept it. The left-right divide makes voting simple, even for those with little interest in politics. A post-ideological approach, however, would require voters to engage more deeply with party programs. For this to work, school reforms are essential, with critical thinking and media literacy taught early. An informed, well-represented society is the foundation of a strong democracy. Public demand for change is crucial too. Activism can pressure political thinkers and leaders to reform a system that no longer serves its purpose.The second step is for political actors to accept it. Mainstream parties fear losing voters; a post-ideological shift could threaten their bases. Naturally, they’re likely to resist change. Citizen activism will be crucial in pushing this transformation, as only a broad, united movement can challenge the political establishment.Political fragmentation is likely after the shift, as many parties would receive fewer votes. However, forming coalitions would become easier, as party programs would focus on specific issues rather than broad ideologies. Negotiating over a few key areas is simpler than navigating an entire ideology. This would lead to a fairer representation of citizens’ views. Since politics wouldn’t be as polarized as currently, negotiations between parties would become more rational.The final step is to reform the media. In the U.S. and Great Britain, media corporations deepen divisions, and this trend is spreading to Europe. Newspapers and TV channels often act as echo chambers, shaping public opinion through politicized reporting. Instead of objective facts, news is filtered through biased presentation or analysis. One possible solution is an impartial, institutional news channel overseen by media experts and representatives from across the political spectrum. Another option is clearer communication from political parties, making their platforms easier to understand so voters don’t have to wade through dense text to grasp their goals. Both would permit citizens to inform and get independent information.
