In an age of complex global challenges, extremism and populism offer a simple but fatally flawed narrative to a public craving a sense of normalcy. With the recent EP elections, this flawed narrative failed to offer a convincing sweep of victory across European voters, despite substantial gains. So, who can offer another way?
In a book published this week, Yair Zivan argues that centrism can offer a way forward, as it has proven itself not only as the most effective antidote to the populists’ dangerous brand of politics but also as a successful way to lead countries.
Far from being an arbitrary middle point between left and right, Zivan believes centrism offers a coherent set of political ideas, principles, and approaches—the importance of moderation and pragmatism; the embrace of complexity; the deep commitment to liberal democracy; the belief in equality of opportunity; and the conviction that by balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better.
I spoke with Zivan to better understand what his substantive vision of centrism is—and how political professionals can use centrism to win elections.
Miles R. Maftean (MM): It’s a bold thing to write about how the centre cannot fold, especially given recent election results and the current polarised world we live in. But what is the actual ideology and principle behind the centre and what is it defending?
Yair Zivan (YZ): If you’re trying to define a political approach, you start by defining what it is and what it isn’t. In the book, I set out with a thesis that there is a political centre, and we should be able to tie together in one coherent book the lessons from all centrists together and to speak to one another. That’s what happened in the book. This book is the proof that the concept exists. When breaking it down, what makes centrism what it is?
Centrism has an absolute, unflinching commitment to liberal democracy and its institutions. There’s a willingness to fight for these institutions and a liberal patriotism that says, we are patriotic, we love our countries, and we combine that with liberal values as opposed to nationalistic far-right ones, while not rejecting national identity like most in the far left do. In a complicated world, it’s okay to embrace complexity and nuance, and our goal as political leaders is to find the balance between the tensions that exist to run a society today.
MM: What are some of these tensions and how are political professionals supposed to effectively communicate these centrist policies in a polarised environment?
YZ: Globalisation and local communities, for instance, allow us to buy cheaper things in the supermarket but affect local industry. How do you protect local farmers but also allow people to buy food at a rate they can afford with a larger market? How do you balance national security and civil rights? How do you balance between the welfare state and free markets? You take these conflicts and you say: I am not looking for one side to win over the other. I want to find the best balance of the two.
The way you build consensus is by embracing compromise, by being pragmatic. If I have a policy that I want to get through and I have 51 percent of the parliament and can pass that policy exactly as I want it, or I can pass 80 percent of what I want but get 75 percent support, I would choose the latter. It’s more sustainable, it’s better governance, it’s more effective, and I might learn and benefit from others. I can embrace compromise and embrace building consensus without searching for the middle point.
There’s a reason why people are worried about mass immigration, technological change, and so forth. Those are not irrational fears, they are legitimate, and the concerns people have are legitimate. The role of politics is to offer solutions to that. You have to start by empathising with these fears and not dismiss them or dismiss the voters. Start by respecting these people. Then, you need to offer better solutions. Populists are good at the empathy part and terrible at finding actual solutions to problems because they are inevitably unworkable because they refuse any balance or nuance in favour of an ideological purity that doesn’t work in a complicated world.
If the extremes deal in fear, you have to offer something different.
MM: By different, do you mean the politics of hope that is in the book?
YZ: Yes, this is the second part of the answer to your first question. There is hope and there is optimism. Optimism is a belief that things will get better. Hope is an active virtue – I will work to change the world around me. Centrists should be offering this positive message and combining it with pragmatic tools.
When you combine patriotism and empathy and say that these are our terms while adding a hopeful message, it’s not just a campaign slogan. You have to create a positive reinforcing loop by delivering on these matters when governed.
MM: A common criticism of centrism is that it isn’t as much of a passionate politics as what the extremes offer. Because it’s such a pragmatic approach with compromises, you’re – at best – labelled as catch-all candidates or unprincipled, wiley politicians. How would you respond to these critics?
YZ: Centrists must be bold and defend liberal democracy as the best system there is. We will be the ones advocating for that even when we lose, or courts rule against us. And centrists must be free speech advocates. We believe in free speech even when we don’t agree with it. We’re against hate speech, but in as wide a boundary as possible, centrists should fight for everyone to be able to speak. This doesn’t mean you have an inherent right to a platform, but the gap between this and shutting down free speech is where centrists need to lead the fight.
Centrists are also leading on technology and how to deal with rapid technological advance. Centrists should have no interest in stopping it but understanding how it can work with society. We harness this for the strategic state, and we are the ones leading the conversation on how we take technology to a positive place while being empathetic towards those who worry about such advancements.
MM: When you have a pragmatic approach, then you’re more viable to run into different prescriptions of what should or should not be done in a given context. How do centrists then hold their principled core given such different national contexts needing different pragmatic answers to their particular national problems?
YZ: First, there is an expectation for centrists that doesn’t exist for others. Not every member of the Socialist International behaves exactly the same way in their national context. For instance, what do you do about extreme parties in your parliament if you’re a centrist? Most systems have militant democratic means to ban parties that are extreme, but the level to do so is incredibly high, as it should be. But that doesn’t mean centrists should work with these parties—there are limits and there is no duty to work with these parties. It’s an approach that centrists should have, and it will be different and nuanced in other national contexts.
MM: Still, when we look at how centrists have performed recently in the EP elections, how can we make the centre politically viable moving forward?
YZ: Every politician needs to be connected to the public. If you look at how Macron founded his party initially, or the NEOS in Austria, they didn’t just create a political party but a movement that was deeply connected to people. They travelled around the country, they had real input into their manifestos, and made real connections to people. When you’re in power, you lose that connection, and that should always be renewed.
If you look at the results of the EU parliament elections, you have to be honest about the lessons with genuine humility to understand what you did well and what you didn’t do well. I started off this interview saying what the centre is, but not what it isn’t. Centrism cannot be simply positioning in the middle. This is a mistake to just be in the middle because you’re incoherent, unstable, and constantly dragged to either side.
Centrist politicians have to guard themselves from any temptation to say that they will find the middle ground of these two extreme poles and place themselves there. That is a disaster for political centrism and a betrayal, and politically, it will be catastrophic. No one wants a politician who is always looking to split a difference.
——–
“The centre must hold: Why centrism is the answer to extremism and polarisation”, edited by Yair Zivan, goes on sale on 27 June here.
