“Positive Politics”: Initial Reflections
Mick Cooper, author of Psychology at the heart of social change: A progressive vision for society (Bristol University Press)
At a time of global crises—of polycrisis—one of the things I find hardest is to see the different political parties taking chunks out of each other. I’d love to see us now, all, with the best of our intelligences, working together to try and solve some of the wicked problems we’re facing. I find this harder still when the belittling, attacks, and demonisations are between those, like myself, of a progressive orientation: whose politics are fundamentally rooted in a belief in others’ capacities to care, cooperate, and act compassionately.
So what would a positive politics look like: an approach to political life that prioritises respectful, collaborative engagement across difference, treats political opponents as acting in good faith unless clearly shown otherwise, and seeks constructive solutions through dialogue, humility, and shared responsibility, rather than through demonisation or personal attack.
1. Respectful engagement across difference
Positive politics would involve engaging with other politicians and political perspectives respectfully and compassionately, even in the presence of deep disagreement. It would distinguish sharply between challenging ideas, policies, and consequences and attacking or degrading persons. Disagreement would be understood as a normal and valuable feature of democratic life, not as evidence of bad character or malicious intent.
2. Constructive rather than purely oppositional orientation
Positive politics would place primary emphasis on articulating and developing constructive proposals for change, rather than defining political identity mainly through opposition to the perceived failures or wrongs of others. Critique would remain important, but would be oriented toward improvement and problem-solving, not exposure or humiliation.
3. Presumption of good faith
Positive politics would begin from a presumption that others are generally trying to do their best within their own values, constraints, and understandings, rather than assuming manipulation, cynicism, or evil intent. This presumption would not be naïve or unconditional, but a default stance that enables dialogue and cooperation.
4. Reflexivity and humility
Positive politics would require an ongoing recognition of one’s own fallibility, partiality, and vulnerability to error. It would value honesty and transparency about one’s own position, interests, and uncertainties, and resist claims to moral purity or absolute correctness. Revising one’s position in the light of new understandings and arguments would not be an indication of weakness, but of open-mindedness and a commitment to learning and seeking truths.
5. Courageous engagement under adversity
Positive politics would involve the courage to remain respectful and constructive even when others might adopt attacking, dismissive, or polarising modes of engagement. It would refuse to mirror hostility as a reflex, while remaining capable of firm disagreement and boundary-setting. Positive politics would require the emotional work and intelligence of processing and moderating one’s immediate response, and engaging in ways that would not perpetuate cycles of hostility and disregard.
6. Commitment to shared democratic responsibility
Positive politics would treat politics as a shared enterprise, in which responsibility for the quality of public life would be collective. It would recognise that how political disagreement is conducted shapes democratic institutions, public trust, and the possibility of future cooperation.
7. Inclusive policy development
Policy would be developed in relation to – and, ideally, collaboratively with – those of different political stances. Different viewpoints would be welcomed as opportunities for growth, learning, and improvement.
___
Positive politics would not deny the existence of power, bad faith, or injustice, nor would it require endless compromise or politeness in the face of harm. Rather, it would seek to make respectful, collaborative dialogue the default mode of political interaction, departing from it only when clearly justified by evidence of abuse, exclusion, or systematic wrongdoing.
Next Steps
Perhaps, as research, one could look at the extent to which different political parties engage in a positive manner: Analysis of speeches, or of manifestos. Whose politics focus on dissing others, who tries to build positive solutions and work collaborative? Who talks to other politicians as if they are intrinsically malevolent or ignorant? Who engages with respect?
Could politicians, or political parties, be invited to sign up to positive political practices? Could we work towards a culture where positive, constructive political engagement was the norm and the most powerful voices in the land were modelling effective communication?
I’d love to know what others think. What, for you, would define a positive politics—and how could we get there?
Acknowledments
Thanks to Matt Hawkins at Commonplace. Photo by Tim Gouw on Unsplash.
