THE BIG PICTURE: The partisans

Almost all political parties in whatever system they function have their diehard supporters, persons who will defend that particular constituency no matter what. I have always wondered why, since I would personally find it difficult to commit to any regime in blind faith and undying allegiance.
Perhaps it was John C. Hammond’s statement to the Harrison College Modern Sixth class that “whatever you are told or whatever you read, always retain a rational sense of doubt” that renders me highly sceptical about most of what I’m told.
In some countries, extreme political alignments are understandable because they represent diametrically opposed ideologies. The conflict of vision between the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States is clear in reflecting a difference in fundamental first principles. In Barbados, in spite of the pretentiousness, there really is no recognizable difference between the two main labour parties. In fact, contemporary politicians in Barbados are so bereft of ideas, they may lack the contextual capacity to even frame a consistent narrative. The last election showed both parties espousing some form of “privatization” when it served their purpose in playing to a gullible public. Months later, neither has said what, if anything, they would privatize, reflecting the pre-eminence of shallow men in a shallow culture.
Given that circumstance, how do persons come to the extreme partisanship we see and hear so often, particularly on the call-in programmes? In his column of May 30, 2013, Clyde Mascoll suggested that roughly 35 to 40 per cent of Barbados’ electorate on either side of the political fence is polarized to the extent of ignoring “well reasoned argument”. One is not sure how much well reasoned argument can reside in an overtly partisan political column written by a man who executed the most extraordinary political volte-face in the history of the universe. 
There are a number of reasons, some legitimate, others less so, as to why one might commit to a political party. Firstly, family orientation – an individual is raised in a family where one of both parents supports a party and perhaps a recognizable ideology. CBC Canada’s business correspondent Amanda Lang, raised in a very Liberal family, recently stated that her mother virtually threatened to disinherit her if she married a Conservative. “You won’t get any family silver,” she was told.  
Persons often follow a party because they admire a particular leader, presumably one with charisma, one who seems to represent the ideals of their age or who had or seemed about to push the country forward. Many of my parents’ and my own generation believed in Grantley Adams and the social revolution. The next generation, generally speaking, were Barrowites, beneficiaries of free secondary education, modernization and upward mobility post 1961.
Even more laudably, an individual might commit to a party because it represents his vision of the country or is perceived as being the best instrument of good governance given the various challenges which the nation faces at a given point in time. I suggested in an earlier article the perceived polarity between the Barbados Labour Party as the party of good progressive economic management and corporate allegiance, and the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) as the party of progressive social inclusiveness. The polarity is overdrawn but one can see how it has gained traction. In the last four decades no fewer than four representatives of labour in the Barbados Assembly have sat for the DLP. 
Less admirably, persons may attach themselves to a political party out of naked, unbridled self-interest, because they see the opportunity of pecuniary and status advancement. Such persons often join a party when it is in the ascendancy or likely to be so in the not so distant future. This is true of all kinds of people, from the humble water carrier looking for a job as a watchman at a school, to the lawyer looking for legal government work.
Such partisanship infuses a corrupting influence into political institutions and the broader political culture. Often possessed of a blunted sense of morality, such partisans pander to the worst instincts of politicians prone to flattery. Government agencies become the home of mediocre sycophants, while at the lower level, smaller men serve as attack dogs. Winning is everything; any semblance of critique, no matter how just or well reasoned, is seen as contrarian and subversive, for if you are not for us, then you must be against us.
The party becomes a fortress against all but those who, like trained seals, do its biding. Thus is undermined what Richard Hofstadter in his The Idea Of The Party System calls “the merits of the party organization as a positive principle and of two-party competition as an asset to the public interest”.
The contemporary French sociologist Dominique Schnapper contends that society needs a political arena in which individuals act as citizens for the collective good. “Collective good” suggests a moral judgment, good as opposed to bad, uplifting as opposed to demeaning. Collective suggests the pursuance of the good of all or the majority thereof, in contrast to the individual well-being and special interests, political or otherwise.
• Ralph Jemmott is a retired educator and social commentator.