Introduction
The intricate relationship between identity and politics in today’s diverse societies has a significant impact on individuals’ participation in democratic processes. Identity politics has the potential to polarise society while simultaneously giving underrepresented people a voice and advancing representation.
Through the use of arguments and the examination of both theoretical and practical examples, this article seeks to analyse the vitality of the connection between identity and politics. It seeks to comprehend why striking a better balance between identity and politics is critical, particularly in today’s climate of modern politics, as opposed to delineating them.
What is identity politics?
Identity being delineated from politics means separating or drawing a line between identity and politics or propagating the idea that even if they can’t be fully separated, people should be encouraged to divide these aspects of their lives. Today, people are heard talking about “identity politics” frequently in political conversation as a societal evil or a threat to democracy. These people or these perspectives are not wrong, because the role of identity in the politics of a nation can rile up majorities with a hunger for power and control, and inflame minorities to revolt or separate violently.
Followers of political parties can become deeply divided and polarised when political ideology is entangled with personal identities. The strong emotional attachment people have to identity issues can stifle healthy dialogue, impair judgment, and result in a lack of productive discussion\ discourse between opposing groups. It leads to people fighting about which identity is “more important” or “more prevalent”, rather than trying to compromise, which often results in a majority rule.
The majority tries to harm or marginalize minority groups this way and enable support through populist strategies. An example from the Indian context would be the BJP’s “Hindutva” agenda or Hindu Cultural Nationalism that seeks to equate an Indian identity with a Hindu one, in turn alienating other diverse religious groups.
Looking at this example, one would think that mobilization or voting based on identity leads only to majoritarianism, different kinds of populism, polarisation, etc . The immediate reaction would be to want to delineate identity from politics or encourage people to separate the personal from the political.
However, when considering minority communities’ battles for representation, the perspective changes. For example, a disenfranchised Muslim woman in fact should ask her community to vote for her because she wants to help individuals with her intersectional identity, to better the community. The best choice would seem to be to vote for someone who has an incentive to help – because they share interests, beliefs, and experiences.
The multiplicity of perspectives on identity politics
No society, with or without identity separated from politics is flawless, and it is hardly objective or equal. However, when people discuss identity politics, they frequently express their anger with marginalized groups who seek more protection, reservations, and representation. They oppose the Bahujan Samaj Party, which fights caste prejudice and campaigns for lower caste rights, as well as the Mandal Commission, which works to create a fairer society.
This is not to imply that these organizations or parties are perfect, but it cannot be denied that identity-based discrimination exists even when formulating an opinion regarding identity politics. People often criticize them for using identity in politics, even though, albeit subtly, any person who comes to power without overtly promoting their identity has had an edge because their identity did not put them at a disadvantage. In the United States of America, for instance, a wealthy white man may not be running for office on this identity, but due to prejudice and discrimination, he still benefits politically and personally from that identity.
Can politics exist without intersecting identities?
Many may claim that when it comes to politics, common desires such as economic policies and infrastructure, i.e. those that would help the “greater good,” can be considered. However, a wealthy upper-caste Hindu in India would have no personal incentive to want better public facilities, such as education and healthcare, because they could regardless send their children to private schools instead. Coming to the issue of economic policies, a member of a marginalized community might not be able to find another job outside their modest shop.
To safeguard their tiny shops, they would prefer different international trade regulations and restrictions than a wealthy businessman who wants to develop his company to become an MNC. People are seen talking very passionately about trade policies, infrastructure, international relations, etc. because, due to their identity, they are affected by these issues differently. Therefore, since it is clear that identity cannot be alienated from someone’s reasoning, opinions, and beliefs, and these things cannot be separated from politics [because we participate based on what we individually know and believe], identity cannot be delineated from politics.
Should individuals be encouraged to delineate identity from politics?
As previously stated in this article, people’s preconceptions regarding various identity groups influence how they see identity politics. Encouraging this separation means putting pressure on minority and marginalized groups to stop using their identity, and the representation they offer to garner votes.
It also means that the people they appeal to should not vote for someone that looks like them, shares their values, and has the incentive to want to help them. This separation of identity should not be actively encouraged, because it furthers the disdain towards minority groups for seeking representation and promoting equity-based policies.
It is also a much more practical decision to vote for someone that has a reason to help you, and encouraging people not to do that would be to ask people not to vote for someone that they feel will represent their interests the most. This goes against the very basic ideas of most democracies today, which are based on a representative government body, chosen by people voting for someone they think stands for them.
An alternative to delineating identity
While identity politics can cause conflict, it is necessary for societal progress and harmony. It is important to address the negative sides of identity politics, such as how different groups’ interests might collide, resulting in polarisation and hatred. However, it is important to also argue that identity politics is an essential factor in addressing historical injustices and ongoing prejudice against vulnerable people.
We should work toward a more inclusive and just society by acknowledging and understanding varied identities because simply trying to dismiss identity politics altogether would perpetuate inequalities and hinder social progress.
To conclude, by appreciating the important role identity plays in politics and discussing its duality, societies can work towards developing a deeper understanding of different identities and the role they should be playing in politics.