Neutrality in Social Politics: Centrism

Editor’s Note: Any opinions expressed in City Voice articles are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the City Voice.

Politics nowadays thrives on division and slogans. In many democratic societies, the citizens often align themselves with political parties that reflect their beliefs, values, and ideals. However, amid a constantly oscillating political climate, some have chosen to stay neutral, opting out of the traditional ‘taking a side’. But in a world where silence can shape policy and outcomes just as much as speech, is neutrality truly harmless? There are many aspects to be taken into consideration when examining the impact of this political stance, which is why it’s important to ask the question; When insisting on neutrality, whose interests are being protected?

The political stance of neutrality is known as ‘Centrism’, a political ideology that holds a moderate position between both sides of the political spectrum. It advocates for policies that typically avoid extremes of social dilemmas. Rather than not taking into account anything, Centrists often incorporate elements from both sides. At face value, people often view this as an appealing approach to subjective or controversial matters because it avoids extremes, promises compromise, and seems reasonable overall. But even at this conceptual level, neutrality can mask status quo bias.

It’s a simple truth as to why Centrism, when discussing pressing social and environmental matters, isn’t ideal; Injustice or harm often requires a stance. The ‘safer option’ of neutrality can counteract, and actually allow wrongs to persist. Some examples of this include systemic racism, human rights issues, and global warming. Choosing to not take strong action based on right and wrong compared to left or right is effectively choosing to protect the existing order. In fact, Current Affairs from March of 2023 goes as far as saying that “Centrism is morally indefensible”.

Broadening the scope, there will always be complex and urgent problems that demand bold and precise responses. Incrementalism and relying on the social-safety net poses inadequacy in furthering societal directives, especially during global crises like pandemics and financial crashes. Furthermore, the core concept of compromise on policies and values lacks sustainability when considering that it is, as put by INOMICS from February of 2021, “…a privileged position available only to those insulated from the sharp-end of inequality and the climate crisis”. When bearing in mind the inequalities in economic status, stability, and provisions, the general principles of Centrism simply don’t align with the civilian exigencies.

Now, if the mechanics of Centrism don’t always reflect equity or justice when dealing with social matters that are requisite for further growth and development, then what can help prioritize principlism over passivism? Instead of stemming from aspects of apathy or avoidance, forms of conscious moderation represent a more intentional middle ground. This term refers to bringing intentional awareness to behaviors as opposed to reliance on traditional notions of moderation. Instead of blurring conviction for the sake of balance, conscious moderation seeks to evaluate issues independently and has the ideal mindset of a willingness to to challenge both extremes when necessary. By staying informed and critically engaged, such moderates contribute to a healthier democracy. In essence, conscious moderation can have a substantial impact on the growth of the political and societal norms when regarding social issues, environmental concerns, and more.

Neutrality in politics is seldom innocent, posing the risks of concealing complicity, enabling injustice, and promotes constant incrementalism. Centrism’s key concepts of compromise and moderation have an important role in balance, but to be effective they must be grounded in ethics and autonomy, not blind avoidance of conflict. Even outside of the political scope, don’t mistake silence or ‘balanced’ terminology for morality, because at some point neutrality becomes submission.