Effects of Non-Partisanship
Recently, as I have stated before, I joined the Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians, and the topic of what it is to be non-partisan has cropped up recently in the blogging world. You can find good examples at Breebop, or Jay Currie. Even the BANPC’s originator,James Bow, steps in and delineates his reasoning for the non-partisan alliance. The importance of the ideal behind the alliance, that most of us who joined can sense, is one that has waxed in my mind for several years now. Looking back on my posts, I can detect a strong flavour of this in almost every entry. Most comments of mine and others so far consider the importance of being non-partisan in a micro-cosmic sort of way. So, I move to the big picture. In this post I will defend so called problems with declaring oneself uncommitted to a party, and attend to the larger idea behind the suspension of commitment that I feel is essential but almost always overlooked.
Firstly, what is non-partisan? Non-partisan can most easily be defined as free from party affiliation or bias. Basically, you don’t throw your lot behind a party and you are able to take in information and express yourself without party colours skewing your vision. A simple definition.
So, where does the criticism come from? Most common of the attacks on this position question the motives behind being non-partisan. A critic will often sense someone hiding true political colours (whether this is conservative or progressive, or even mental laziness) behind a non-committal banner, and they mistrust the non-partisan. Since their views can obviously be labelled somehow, these labels can give an overall measurement of the person’s political leanings. To say someone is non-partisan while displaying a certain political inclination makes the critic distrust them. However, this is looking at the idea the wrong way. It is not a question of support, but rather a question of bias. To identify with a group means you immediately incorporate the meme, or idea, of that group. You like the group you identify with, you feel good to be in that group. The consequences, then, are your own self-biases are bridged to that group. To criticise the group you belong to is equivalent to criticising a part of your identity. Obviously, you don’t like this. The human mind has long since created self-serving biases. These predispositions are not a bad thing. They help us function as happy, good individuals. However, since we have introduced a group component into our self-concept, these self serving biases colour the way we view the group we now belong to. And I doubt this could be shown otherwise. Show me someone who does not like their group, and I’ll show you someone who identifies with a smaller sub-group.
Then, by reserving yourself against outside affiliation, you keep what little objectivity you have as an agentic being intact. Many people would love to believe that changing a part of yourself from “I” to “we” has no effect, the reality of this is untrue. We like to come up with reasons explaining how we are unaffected by the social world we create, but these are only justifications coming after the fact. Belief can lead to behaviour, but behaviour more often leads to belief. Why do you love your hometown, or province, or even this country, when you were really randomly assigned to it? Why is your religion or, more importantly here, your political affiliation the same as your parents or peers? The reasons you could come up with to answer these questions would be the exact same type of answers had chance doled out a different life. Of course, there are exceptions to my examples, but you would only be arguing the specifics. Instances where people could think outside their world would only be instances of individuals who had stepped back from labels.
So, non-partisanship is crucial in keeping a flexible mind; a mind that is capable of receiving information, processing it, and expressing opinion while keeping biases to a minimum. Sounds obscure, I know, but I do not like the idea of surrendering a part of my intellect up to protecting a group. I would rather have an open mind. And I think this is the effect James Bow wanted.
Others know what I am talking about. Jay Currie nearly hits this on the head. He said, at Breebop
Non-partisan is not a disguise, it is a habit of mind which refuses to put up with the lies, corruption and short-sightedness which passes for party platforms in Canada at the moment.
Drop everything after “mind” and this is the essence of what I am saying. What suspension of commitment does is not betray your beliefs and values; rather it enables the individual to gather them as truthfully as possible. This is something that is extremely valuable in the polarized world we live in.
Now this is only a beginning move to what could be a good debate. There are many counters open here, and I encourage you to pick me apart. However, I have committed to the Non-Partisan group, so anything you say will be coloured by my commitment. Ha-ha.
