THE LEFT AND RIGHT: WHEN POLITICAL IDENTITY REPLACES PROBLEM-SOLVING- 

Has Politics Become a Competition Between Ideological Tribes Rather Than a Search for Solutions?

What happens when people become more committed to defending their political identity than solving the problems their societies face?

Across democratic and authoritarian political systems, ideological labels shape how people understand government, economics, social justice, national identity and individual freedom.

The political Left traditionally emphasises social equality, redistribution, workers' rights and collective responsibility. The political Right traditionally emphasises private enterprise, individual responsibility, national traditions, social order and limited government in certain areas.

These are broad tendencies, not universal definitions. Both traditions contain competing movements, philosophies and policy approaches.

But an increasingly important question deserves investigation:

Have political ideologies become identities that people defend even when the evidence suggests their preferred policies are not working?

Consider a society struggling with unemployment, corruption, housing shortages, inflation, poor healthcare, educational inequality and declining public trust.

Instead of asking which policies could address these problems, political debate can become dominated by different questions:

• Which side is responsible?

• Which side should receive the blame?

• Which ideology must be defended?

• Which political leader must be protected?

• Which opposing group must be defeated?

The result can be a political environment in which winning an argument becomes more important than improving people's lives.

The original purpose of political ideologies

Political ideologies emerged from different interpretations of how societies should organise power, distribute resources and protect individual and collective interests.

Political tradition	Common priorities	Important questions
Left	Equality, redistribution, labour protection, public services	How should societies address structural inequality?
Right	Private enterprise, individual responsibility, tradition, social order	How should societies protect freedom, institutions and economic incentives?
Centre	Compromise, institutional stability, incremental reform	How can competing interests be reconciled?
Libertarian traditions	Individual liberty, limited state authority	How much power should government exercise?
Green politics	Environmental sustainability, ecological responsibility	How should economic development respect planetary limits?

These categories overlap. A person can support free enterprise and universal healthcare, or strong national defence and extensive social protection.

The problem begins when ideological identification becomes more important than evaluating individual policies.

When political loyalty becomes stronger than evidence

Imagine two governments implementing similar policies.

One is led by a left-wing party. The other is led by a right-wing party.

If the left-wing government increases public expenditure, its supporters might describe the decision as social investment.

If the right-wing government does the same, critics might describe it as irresponsible spending.

The reverse can happen with privatisation, tax reductions, deregulation or immigration policies.

The underlying policy deserves examination on its own merits.

• What problem was it intended to solve?

• How was it financed?

• Who benefited?

• Who carried the costs?

• What measurable results followed?

• Were unintended consequences addressed?

Political identity can influence how people interpret identical evidence. This is closely related to motivated reasoning, partisan bias and selective exposure to information.

The deeper investigative question is whether political allegiance is changing the standards by which citizens judge government performance.

The political industry: Does division benefit political leaders?

There is another dimension that deserves investigation: the political incentives that reward division.

Political parties need supporters, funding, public attention and electoral victories. In highly competitive environments, controversy can become a powerful tool for attracting attention and reinforcing loyalty.

Political communication can increasingly revolve around:

• Presenting opponents as threats to the nation.

• Turning policy disagreements into moral battles.

• Mobilising supporters through fear and resentment.

• Defending political allies even when their decisions deserve scrutiny.

• Treating compromise as betrayal.

• Prioritising electoral victory over long-term institutional reform.

This does not mean every politician deliberately manufactures division. Genuine ideological disagreements and competing interests are real.

However, research into political identity suggests that hostility between political groups can become a distinct problem.

A 2025 Annual Review of Psychology review examined evidence that partisans systematically favour information supporting their political group. A separate 2025 study in Nature Communications found that providing participants with credible information on both sides of a contentious policy issue could moderate their positions.

The investigative question is:

When political division becomes electorally useful, what incentive do political leaders have to resolve it?

The media and social media: Who profits from political division?

Political communication has changed significantly.

Traditional media, digital platforms, influencers and independent commentators compete for public attention.

Emotionally charged political content can attract engagement, while complex policy explanations often struggle to achieve the same visibility.

Consider the consequences:

1. A complicated economic problem becomes a 30-second political argument.

2. A politician's statement becomes a viral controversy.

3. Supporters defend their political camp.

4. Opponents circulate criticism.

5. The original policy problem receives less attention than the political confrontation.

This creates a serious question about the relationship between attention economics and democratic debate.

Are citizens becoming better informed, or are they becoming more effective consumers of political conflict?

The distinction matters because access to more information does not automatically produce better understanding.

When political identity weakens democratic accountability

One of democracy's essential functions is to allow citizens to evaluate those exercising public power.

But consider what happens when political loyalty becomes the dominant measure of government performance.

A supporter may excuse corruption because the politician belongs to their preferred political camp.

An opponent may reject a successful policy because it was introduced by an opposing administration.

A political party may criticise executive overreach when out of power but defend similar behaviour when governing.

These are accountability problems, not exclusively left-wing or right-wing characteristics.

The OECD's 2024 survey of public trust found that, across participating OECD countries, 53% of people who voted for the governing party reported high or moderately high trust in national government, compared with 26% of those who supported the opposition. It also identified partisan trust gaps affecting administrative institutions. These findings concern reported trust, not proof that every institution is politically biased.

This raises a fundamental democratic question:

Can citizens hold governments accountable when they judge political conduct according to party loyalty rather than consistent standards?

The danger of treating political opponents as enemies

Political disagreement is normal in democratic societies.

A healthy democracy should accommodate disagreements over taxation, immigration, healthcare, education, national security, religion, culture and economic policy.

The danger emerges when disagreement becomes hostility towards the people holding different views.

There is a difference between saying:

- "I disagree with your economic policy."

And saying:

- "People who support your political movement are enemies of society."

Political scientists distinguish ideological disagreement from affective polarisation: negative feelings towards supporters of opposing political groups.

Research published in 2025 examined political hostility across 12 established democracies and identified a growing relative weight of negative out-party evaluations in the countries and elections studied.

This is important because a society can survive considerable ideological disagreement. It becomes harder to govern when political opponents are no longer recognised as legitimate participants in public life.

Is the political centre disappearing?

The political centre is often misunderstood.

Being centrist does not necessarily mean agreeing with everyone, avoiding difficult questions or splitting every disagreement down the middle.

A person might support:

• Strong public healthcare and private enterprise.

• Strict anti-corruption laws and limited executive power.

• Immigration controls alongside humanitarian obligations.

• National security alongside civil liberties.

• Environmental protection alongside industrial development.

• Progressive taxation alongside entrepreneurship.

These positions do not always fit neatly into traditional political categories.

The more important principle is the willingness to assess policies independently of ideological ownership.

However, the political centre also deserves scrutiny. It can become excessively cautious, defend established arrangements or avoid necessary structural reforms.

The question should therefore not be whether the Left, Right or Centre deserves political dominance.

It should be whether political institutions allow evidence, public interest and accountability to influence decisions.

A global perspective: Is this only a Western problem?

No. The underlying questions extend beyond the traditional Western Left–Right political divide.

Region	Investigative focus
United States	Democratic–Republican polarisation, institutional trust and political identity
Europe	Nationalism, immigration, populism and the changing political centre
France	Left–Right fragmentation, political protest and competing visions of the Republic
Africa	Ethnic, regional, ideological and personality-based political mobilisation
Asia	National identity, economic ideology, state authority and political legitimacy
Latin America	Populism, economic inequality and ideological shifts between governments

The categories differ across countries. In some African political systems, for example, ethnic, regional, religious or personality-based affiliations may be more influential than conventional Left–Right distinctions.

It would therefore be misleading to assume that every political conflict can be explained through Western ideological categories.

What would problem-solving politics look like?

Instead of asking whether a policy is left-wing or right-wing, governments and citizens could evaluate it against a common set of questions.

National challenge	What should be measured?
Unemployment	Sustainable jobs and wage growth
Poverty	Poverty reduction and economic mobility
Healthcare	Accessibility, affordability and outcomes
Education	Learning outcomes and equal opportunity
Corruption	Transparency, prosecution and recovery of public funds
Housing	Affordability and availability
Security	Public safety and protection of civil liberties
Economic development	Productivity, investment and industrial capacity
Technology	Innovation, access and responsible deployment
Public administration	Efficiency, accountability and institutional independence

A policy should not automatically be considered successful because it carries the preferred ideological label.

Nor should it be rejected simply because it originates from an opposing political tradition.

The evidence, implementation and consequences should determine its evaluation.

The ultimate question: Who does politics actually serve?

Perhaps the deepest problem is that political systems can gradually become focused on preserving political power rather than delivering public value.

Political parties are supposed to represent citizens, articulate competing interests and develop policies for governing society.

But when political identity becomes an end in itself, citizens risk becoming instruments of political competition.

They are mobilised to defend parties, attack opponents, circulate slogans and participate in endless ideological disputes.

Meanwhile, the fundamental challenges remain.

Young people still need employment. Families still need affordable housing. Businesses still need reliable infrastructure. Children still need quality education. Citizens still need trustworthy institutions.

These problems do not ask whether the government is left-wing or right-wing.

They demand solutions.

The real test of political leadership is not how effectively a politician defeats an ideological opponent, but how effectively their decisions improve the conditions under which people live.

And perhaps democracy needs a more fundamental question:

If political parties exist to serve society, at what point does society become trapped serving political parties?

By Jugo Ikeji Uju

Content Sponsorship available-

With links on ubuntusafa.com

Contact admin:

sappertekinc@gmail.com

admin@ubuntusafa.com