By Diego de Soto ∼
After the last congressional elections, many Peruvians have resigned themselves to the idea that extreme polarization and political conflict will be an inevitable part of public life for a long time. And in fact, deep ideological divisions and the conflict which they engender seem to be an inevitable part of the history of Peru, as in all countries in the world. It is a daunting reality.
However, an antidote exists to the poison of unnecessary political conflict, a holistic and sustainable solution, which allows us to understand each other and find common ground without abandoning our deepest principles and values. It is called transpartisanship.
Transpartisanship has its roots in the sixties and seventies of the last century in the United States, when a conservative activist named Lawrence Chickering began to note a strange phenomenon in his activities: political ideas being shared by groups which would traditionally be completely opposed, known colloquially as “strange bedfellows.” For example, certain liberals (that is, left-wing groups) and conservatives, while stringently disagreeing on social issues, would agree on fiscal issues.
After a long period of research and reflection, Chickering began to realize that political divisions were not about left and right; instead, there was a dichotomy within these two groups. And the two extremes of this division lay in a fundamental dialectic for all human beings: freedom and order. That is to say, there is a “freedom right,” “order right,” “freedom left,” and “order left.”
Let’s begin with the freedom right. This is the facet of the spectrum that strongly believes in self-interest as the engine of social progress, that is, the importance of free market capitalism. And it is clear that the individualist and entrepreneurial vision of this group has brought unimaginable riches to the world. Peru has faithfully followed this model for the past thirty years, and it is easy to appreciate the progress it has brought. Peru is in effect a “freedom right country.”
However, the freedom right also has its “dark side.” Negative aspects of this perspective are egotism, greed, and a mentality that if there are “winners,” then there must be “losers.” On a deeper level, there are risks of alienation and of narrow social experiences, and of the exclusion of traditionally marginalized communities (minorities, women, etc.).
Now the order right. This facet is more well-known as the “traditional conservatives” (especially religious conservatives). The essential truth of this group is to take care of those whom are close, and results in intimate and intense relationships with one’s “tribe.” The clear example of this group in Peru is Los Israelitas.
The dark side of this perspective is that it can result in fear of (and in the worst cases, hate towards) groups that are outside the intimate circle of the traditional group. The classic example of this is the Nazis and Jews.
Moving to the Left, let’s look at the freedom left. Defined more clearly, this group is the civil libertarians, who believe primarily in challenging large bureaucratic structures that don’t respond to the intimate needs of communities. You may note that they share the value of intimate associations with the order right group, but they extend these relationships to marginalized communities. The clearest example of this group in Peru is Democracia Directa.
The dark side of the freedom left is that it is only inclusive of groups that share its critical stance on large bureaucracies.
And the order left, which is traditionally known in its most extreme form as Marxism-Leninism, has as its central value the extension of justice to the poorest and most marginalized. Clearly, the emblematic example of this position is the Frente Amplio.
The dark side of the order left, as many Peruvians will know, is the lack of personal freedom, and more philosophically, the lack of weight given to the subjective dimension of life, that is, to take care of one’s close community in situations where the state is not involved.
Transpartisanship holds that to create institutions and societies that are truly sustainable, one needs to integrate all the positive values of these groups, discarding the dark sides. We need institutions that will make people feel both both free and connected at the same time.
So, how do we accomplish this on a practical level?
A typical transpartisan encounter begins with a group of leaders from every facet who will focus on a specific hot-button issue—let’s take abortion as an example. The encounter begins with a moderated discussion on the issue, but (and this is extremely important) the discussion focuses on the participants’ emotional and subjective experiences of the issue. It’s not about talking about policy positions and saying, “I want this policy for reason x.” It’s about talking about the issue in a frank and intimate manner. How does the issue make you feel? How did you evolve emotionally with the issue as your political opinions were formed? How does the issue interact with your values and principles?
The reason for approaching the issue in this way is to humanize people. It allows people who normally don’t interact in this way with each other to peer into each other’s hearts. And when this happens “the other” is seen more as a complete and complex being instead of a series of policy positions that must be rejected with “pure logic.” And this is when miracles occur. It’s possible to find common ground.
For example, a group of pro-life and pro-choice activists met in a transpartisan meeting in the US to discuss abortion, and though they didn’t change their fundamental stances, they agreed to work together in programs to reduce teenage pregnancies. This sort of fellowship can be built on. Transpartisan encounters have also taken place on issues like prison reform, gun control, and transgender rights.
The most important thing is that people from “opposing sides” can look into each other’s eyes and recognize that what brings us together as human beings is much more significant than what divides us. We all have pieces of the truth, and everyone is needed to create truly significant change. Transpartisanship is an important step toward this change.
