In a political landscape often yearning for consensus, a compelling argument emerges: political polarisation is not the societal ill it's frequently portrayed to be, but rather a necessary and even desirable historical force. This perspective gains traction in the wake of Zohran Mamdani's surprising mayoral victory in New York City, a global financial hub.
The Rise of Authentic Politics Over False Consensus
The recent election of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City sent shockwaves through established political circles. Beyond the expected right-wing alarmism, Mamdani's success caused significant concern within his own Democratic party. His unapologetic political identity—openly calling himself a socialist, vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes if he visited NYC, and refusing to visit Israel—defied conventional American political wisdom. His unique campaign flavour was further highlighted when he played the Bollywood track Dhoom machale before his victory speech.
This phenomenon is part of a broader pattern observed since the rise of former US President Donald Trump in 2015. While media and political elites often lament the loss of civility and bipartisanship, a substantial portion of the electorate found Trump's style more authentic than his consultant-trained opponents. Similarly, on the left, Bernie Sanders shifted focus to the working class, a departure from the traditional middle-class-centric politics, and was similarly labelled as polarising and divisive within the Democratic party, unlike the more realistic approach of Hillary Clinton.
Polarisation as a Path to Clearer Political Articulation
The instinctive reaction to such figures is often a plea to return to a more civil, consensus-driven politics. However, this perspective argues that the rise of political polarisation is, historically, both necessary and desirable. It forces a clearer articulation of political ideologies, stripping away a false consensus that merely papers over deep-seated societal contradictions.
For decades, a stable consensus existed in the US, built on a fundamental agreement over capitalism and imperialism. Disagreements between Republicans and Democrats were often about the degree, not the substance, of foreign intervention or economic policy. A poignant symbol of this dreadful consensus is the widely circulated photograph of Michelle Obama comforting George W. Bush—a moment of bipartisanship that also represented a political establishment that oversaw domestic poverty and international destruction. The fraying of this consensus allows citizens to see clearly what is truly at stake.
Lessons for the Indian Political Arena
The crucial task, therefore, is not to revive a moribund consensus but to construct a new one. The creation of a new historic bloc—a fresh societal consensus—is always a long and arduous process. In its initial phases, it is necessarily not universal, especially when addressing vertical social stratifications like caste and class, as opposed to horizontal ones like religion or ethnicity.
It is feasible to articulate a horizontal universalism, such as Hindu-Muslim unity. However, a politics genuinely for the working class and Bahujans will inevitably clash with upper-caste and class privileges. In such contexts, speaking of a non-polarised, universal politics for all is inherently meaningless. A temporary vertical consensus is sometimes achieved through cultural hegemony and redistributive measures, but this is often unsustainable.
Moving away from a false consensus also leads to an aesthetic reconfiguration of politics, fostering greater authenticity. Politicians no longer need to be universally liked, signalling the death of the mythical everyman. Instead, a more organic and authentic aesthetic emerges, which, while sometimes parochial, can also appeal to a wider social coalition, as seen in Mamdani's campaign. At its core lies emotional resonance. During polarising times, the grip of centrist, instrumentalist rationality weakens, and voters are more likely to act on gut feeling. Any politics devoid of an emotional register is destined to flounder.
This holds profound lessons for Indian opposition parties. While legitimate concerns about financial disparity and institutional malpractice persist, introspection is equally critical. These parties need to develop a distinct and emotionally resonant worldview capable of forging a new historic bloc. In this endeavour, they may not please everybody, but that is infinitely better than the alternative of pleasing nobody.
