In times of instability, the way of doing politics is sometimes the best indicator of the substance behind candidates

In the many discussions I've had recently, I've been struck by how little importance is given to the form of political campaigns, and by ‘form’ I mean the way of ‘doing’ politics. 

This year, almost half of humanity is heading to the polls; in Belgium alone, we have about a million first-time voters. This is good news for democracy. But who to vote for, and how to make that choice?

Voters should consider not only the content of the policies proposed by political movements, but also the form their campaigns take. In this age of instability, this might well be a more sensible indicator.

Different approaches to cast a vote

There are several approaches in deciding how to vote.

The classic way is to give your preference to the party that is closest to your vision of the common good. In this approach, it is the ideological positioning of the party that serves as the starting point for reflection. Its history, its statutes and its manifesto for the forthcoming elections are therefore the main sources of information.

Alternatively, voters might focus on a specific measure that they consider to be a priority. Citizens who are particularly sensitive to a cause or specialists in a particular subject then choose to vote for the candidate or party that endorses the subject of interest. Even when this means not choosing a party whose project they don’t fully align with. Typical examples for this include issues of taxation, ethics or the defence of minorities.

Some voters may seek to establish a balance of power in parliaments, taking stock of current majorities and opinion polls to determine the most favourable choice in order to generate a desired balance; you may not wish to vote for parties that have a majority in certain regions, you may support extreme parties as a protest vote against the establishment; or on the contrary, you may favour a path that allow coalitions to bypass right- or left-wings.

Often, voters will favour a particular personality, giving their vote to a candidate whose competence or scale of priorities they consider to be right. The reasoning is that similar values will lead this person to make the preferred choices when needed. Giving weight to that person is a way to support these choices within an assembly of elected representatives or in debates internal to his or her party.

Finally, one can support a way of ‘doing politics’ which gives voice to a particular style. In very concrete terms, this means choosing a certain vocabulary and tone, a way in which candidates address the public. Might these styles convey an attitude that is proper, discreet, efficient, genuine and listening? Or rather persevering and savvy? Or aggressive, arrogant, resting on force or fear? Depending on an individual’s sensitivities, we will seek to encourage behaviours that we consider virtuous - by voting. Ultimately, this means considering the form that politics takes.

A time of instability and unpredictability

Choosing to consider how politics is ‘done’ is not naive or aesthetic. When ideals and behaviour are aligned, the potential impact of a candidate is enhanced. In an age of permacrises, a programmatic approach to voting will often be impractical due to the unforeseen nature of what governments have to deal with. This is especially true in Belgium, where coalitions of a large number of parties lead to a dissolution of their programmes.

Today's society seems far from sharing a clear vision of the direction to follow. Changes, whether environmental, demographic, economic, technological or geopolitical, can be multiple and complex. When instability is widespread, being in power is more about reacting to these unforeseen events than delivering. A long-term vision that has a chance of serving as a compass for society cannot therefore be limited to a list of policies, it must be anchored in ideals. The ultimate indicator of an ideal defended by a candidate is none other than his or her attitude.

Honing your intuition

Voting for a particular way of ‘doing politics’ means taking a deeper dive and honing your intuition. How do candidates talk about their rivals? What vocabulary is used in interviews? Do parties embrace nuance or do they look for scapegoat groups on social networks? How authentic are candidates' smiles and body language? What did they write? Who have they hired in their teams and how have they voted in the past?

Giving your vote to virtuous approaches, regardless of the ideas behind them, is a way to resist fatalism. It means refusing to surrender to the political arena as being solely confrontational and merciless. In a hyper-polarised society, with information and communication systems often turning politics into a show, encouraging bridge-builders is necessary. Perhaps the vote we need most at the moment is the vote that humanises politics by supporting a better way of doing politics.

A version of this article was published earlier in LaLibreBelgique.