The Art of Political Commentary

More Than Entertaining Shadows.

In today’s turbulent environment, where political discourse is polarised to the extreme, where conspiracy theories populate social media as never before and where the end of the world is apparently right around the corner, new reporting and, more importantly, news analysis and political commentary is a treacherous profession where only a few and brave dare venture – That is not to say that political commentary is lost forever, on the contrary – everybody and their awkward uncle has access like never before to a public at large.

And herein lies the rub. Expressing opinions is available to everybody, and rightly so. However, facts do matter. They are the bedrock of political analysis, the solid foundation for our understanding of the world. Basing political analysis on opinions alone, without being grounded in facts, is like building a sand castle on the beach at low tide. The sand castle will be washed away as soon as the sea comes in, and nothing will remain.

Photo : Géard Aimé. "Mai 68, Les Murs Ont La Parole"

Political commentary is a pivotal force in changing public perception, and the most important quality required is ethical integrity.

Credibility and trustworthiness depend on ethical integrity. Commentators must adhere to principles of professionalism akin to those practised in well-known newsrooms such as the BBC. Analysis must imperatively be anchored in facts and devoid of bias or partisan agendas. This does not mean that a political commentator has to remain more neutral than a Swiss Guard at the Vatican. After all, intellectual honesty requires that political commentary present a specific point of view.

"However, the starting point of any argumentation needs to be factually correct; otherwise, it is merely the expression of an opinion, however expertly it may be presented."

For my part, I have to confess I have a clear bias and agenda; namely, I am clearly and definitively on the side of democracy and, to quote Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. This fundamental belief is not innocuous, as it is based on my observations of what works best for the average citizen. To be more precise, the more democracy, the better and in this respect, unperfect as it may, the semi-direct model of direct democracy as practised in Switzerland is a system that delivers results for the people and, more importantly, whilst taking into consideration all political views is able to achieve a consensus that precludes any extreme positions to dominate. The underlying philosophy is the so-called principle of concordance democracy, where compromise and consensus are not bad words but rather represent the cornerstone of the system itself. One must admit that it works quite well for Switzerland, which has the unique characteristic of uniting three different cultures and languages (actually four if you account for reto-romanisch) under one national roof.

Unfortunately, Concordance democracy à la Swiss is the exception rather than the rule. Democratic confrontation is the preferred model, with political parties of different views taking turns exercising power and being pushed into opposition if they lose the periodic elections.

My natural instincts to reject any and all extremisms, or any ‘isms for that matter, dictate my approach to current events. In an ideal world, we would all get along together, and adversity would not necessarily imply unbridled confrontation to the bitter end. But one only has to look at what is happening in the United States, where one party declares that the 2024 election is nothing less than “victory or death” to realise that the reality is that division and hatred are gaining the upper hand. Rest assured, the United States is not the only nation that is experiencing such radical change; the recent results of the European parliamentary elections demonstrate that hatred, division and extremism are spoken all around the world in different accents.

What is the underlying reason for such a change in today’s political environment? I believe that the answer is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of technological advances (AI will kill us all), fear of immigrants, fear of the future. The US founding fathers recognised that “fear might overwhelm reflective thought”. The politics of fear can pave the way for a demagogue with unwieldy promises of strength and security in exchange for surrendering freedom. It is no surprise, therefore, that politicians with such ambitions paint the present as apocalyptic and deliberately exaggerate the severity of the present situation to promote better an idealistic future where unicorns and pink clouds abound, shrouded in some form of greatness or divine protection under their enlightened leadership.

Doom and the promotion of catastrophe are gaining traction in today’s political discourse, trading on negative emotions instead of rational thinking. It is high time that we fight back with hope, optimism, and positivity.

Political commentary that deconstructs the politics of catastrophe and doom and inspires a better world of hope and positivity is no easy task, but it is one that is worthy of undertaking with humility, determination, and resilience.

Welcome to the world of Devine Commentary, where facts matter and hope prevails.