Identity Politics Issues and Challenges

Identity politics is a political approach wherein people of a particular gender,

religion, race, social background, social class or other identifying factors, develop
political agendas that are based upon these identities. The term is used in a variety
of ways to describe phenomena as diverse as multiculturalism, women’s
movements, civil rights, lesbian and gay movements, and regional separatist
movements.

Many contemporary advocates of identity politics take an intersectional

perspective, which accounts for the range of interacting systems of oppression that
may affect their lives and come from their various identities. According to many
who describe themselves as advocates of identity politics, it centers the lived
experiences of those facing systemic oppression; the purpose is to better
understand the interplay of racial, economic, sex-based, and gender-based
oppression (among others) and to ensure no one group is disproportionately
affected by political actions, present and future. Such contemporary applications of
identity politics describe people of specific race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity,
sexual orientation, age, economic class, disability status, education, religion,
language, profession, political party, veteran status, and geographic location. These
identity labels are not mutually exclusive but are in many cases compounded into
one when describing hyper-specific groups. An example is that of African-
American, homosexual, women, who constitute a particular hyper-specific identity
class. Those who take an intersectional perspective, such as Kimberle Crenshaw,
criticise narrower forms of identity politics which over-emphasise inter-group
differences and ignore intra-group differences and forms of oppression.

Critics of identity politics have seen it as particularist, in contrast to the

universalism of liberal perspectives, or argue that it detracts attention from non-
identity based structures of oppression and exploitation. A leftist critique of
identity politics, such as that of Nancy Fraser, points out that political mobilization
based on identitarian affirmation leads to surface redistribution that does not
challenge the status quo. Instead, Fraser argued, identitarian deconstruction, rather
than affirmation, is more conducive to a leftist politics of economic redistribution.
Other critiques, such as that of Kurzwelly, Rapport and Spiegel, point out that
identity politics often leads to reproduction and reification of essentialist notions of
identity, notions which are inherently erroneous.

Critiques and Criticisms of identity politics

Critics argue that groups based on a particular shared identity (e.g. race, or gender
identity) can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues, similar to
the history of divide and rule strategies. In response to the formulations of the
Combahee River Collective that necessitated the organization of women around
intersectional identities to bring about broader social change, socialist and radical
feminists insisted that, instead, activism would require support for more “basic”
forms of oppression. Other feminists also mirrored this sentiment, implying that a
politics of issues should supersede a politics of identity. Tarrow also asserts that
identity politics can produce insular, sectarian, and divisive movements incapable
of expanding membership, broadening appeals, and negotiating with prospective
allies. In other words, separate organization undermines movement identity,
distracts activists from important issues, and prevents the creation of a common
agenda. In addition, Chris Hedges has criticized identity politics as one of the
factors making up a form of “corporate capitalism” that only masquerades as a
political platform, and which he believes “will never halt the rising social
inequality, unchecked militarism, evisceration of civil liberties and omnipotence of
the organs of security and surveillance.”

Those who criticize identity politics from the right see it as inherently Collectivist
and prejudicial, in contradiction to the ideals of Classical liberalism. Those who
criticize identity politics from the left see it as a version of bourgeois nationalism,
i.e. as a divide and conquer strategy by the ruling classes to divide people by
nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. so as to distract the working class from
uniting for the purpose of class struggle.

Sociologist Charles Derber asserts that the American left is “largely an identity-
politics party” and that it “offers no broad critique of the political economy of
capitalism. It focuses on reforms for Blacks and women and so forth. But it doesn’t
offer a contextual analysis within capitalism.” Both he and David North of the
Socialist Equality Party posit that these fragmented and isolated identity
movements which permeate the left have allowed for a far-right resurgence. Cornel
West asserted that discourse on racial, gender and sexual orientation identity was
“crucial” and “indispensable,” but emphasized that it “must be connected to a
moral integrity and deep political solidarity that hones in on a financialized form of
predatory capitalism. A capitalism that is killing the planet, poor people, working
people here and abroad.”
Black feminist identity politics

Black feminist identity politics concern the identity-based politics derived from the
lived experiences of struggles and oppression faced by Black women.

In 1977, the Combahee River Collective (CRC) Statement argued that black
women struggled with facing their oppression due to the sexism present within the
Civil Rights Movement and the racism present within second-wave feminism. This
statement in which the CRC coined the term “identity politics” gave black women
in the U.S. a political foothold both within radical movements and at large from
which they could confront the oppression they were facing. The CRC also claimed
to expand upon the prior feminist adage that “the personal is political,” pointing to
their own consciousness-raising sessions, centering of black speech, and communal
sharing of experiences of oppression as practices that expanded the phrase’s scope.
As mentioned earlier K. Crenshaw, claims that the oppression of black women is
illustrated in two different directions: race and sex.

Gender

Gender identity politics is an approach that views politics, both in practice and as
an academic discipline, as having a gendered nature and that gender is an identity
that influences how people think. Politics has become increasingly gender political
as formal structures and informal ‘rules of the game’ have become gendered. How
institutions affect men and women differently are starting to be analysed in more
depth as gender will affect institutional innovation.

Arab identity politics

Arab identity politics concerns the identity-based politics derived from the racial or
ethnocultural consciousness of Arab people. In the regionalism of the Middle East,
it has particular meaning in relation to the national and cultural identities of non-
Arab countries, such as Turkey, Iran and North African countries. In their 2010
Being Arab: Arabism and the Politics of Recognition, academics Christopher Wise
and Paul James challenged the view that, in the post-Afghanistan and Iraq invasion
era, Arab identity-driven politics were ending. Refuting the view that had “drawn
many analysts to conclude that the era of Arab identity politics has passed”, Wise
and James examined its development as a viable alternative to Islamic
fundamentalism in the Arab world.
The rise of Authoritarianism and what that
means for geo politics
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong
central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and
democratic voting. Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of
government. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of
a party or the military.

Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In
government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a
small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people. Authoritarian leaders often exercise power
arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law, and they usually cannot be replaced by citizens choosing
freely among various competitors in elections. The freedom to create opposition political parties or other alternative
political groupings with which to compete for power with the ruling group is either limited or nonexistent in
authoritarian regimes.

Authoritarianism thus stands in fundamental contrast to democracy. It also differs from totalitarianism, however, since
authoritarian governments usually have no highly developed guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social
organization, lack the power to mobilize the entire population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise power within
relatively predictable limits. Examples of authoritarian regimes, according to some scholars, include the pro-Western
military dictatorships that existed in Latin America and elsewhere in the second half of the 20th century.

Characteristics

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized government power maintained by political
repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize
people around the goals of the regime. Adam Przeworski has theorized that “authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on
lies, fear and economic prosperity.” However, Daniel A. Bell and Wang Pei used China’s experience with COVID-19
to argue that the categories are not so clear cut.

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is
“self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens’ free choice among competitors”, the arbitrary
deprivation of civil liberties and little tolerance for meaningful opposition. A range of social controls also attempt to
stifle civil society while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy
staffed by the regime and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.

Authoritarianism is marked by “indefinite political tenure” of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or
other authority. The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as
democratization.

Authoritarian regimes often adopt “the institutional trappings” of democracies such as constitutions. Constitutions in
authoritarian states may serve a variety of roles, including “operating manual” (describing how the government is to
function); “billboard” (signal of regime’s intent), “blueprint” (outline of future regime plans), and “window dressing”
(material designed to obfuscate, such as provisions setting forth freedoms that are not honored in practice).
Authoritarian constitutions may help legitimize, strengthen, and consolidate regimes. An authoritarian constitution
“that successfully coordinates government action and defines popular expectations can also help consolidate the
regime’s grip on power by inhibiting re coordination on a different set of arrangements.” Unlike democratic
constitutions, authoritarian constitutions do not set direct limits on executive authority; however, in some cases such
documents may function as ways for elites to protect their own property rights or constrain autocrats’ behavior.

The concept of “authoritarian constitutionalism” has been developed by legal scholar Mark Tushnet. Tushnet
distinguishes authoritarian constitutionalist regimes from “liberal constitutionalist” regimes (“the sort familiar in the
modern West, with core commitments to human rights and self-governance implemented by means of varying
institutional devices”) and from purely authoritarian regimes (which reject the idea of human rights or constraints on
leaders’ power). He describes authoritarian constitutionalist regimes as:

(1) Authoritarian dominant-party states that.

(2) Impose sanctions (such as libel judgments) against, but do not arbitrarily arrest, political dissidents.

(3) Permit “reasonably open discussion and criticism of its policies”.

(4) Hold “reasonably free and fair elections”, without systemic intimidation, but “with close attention to such matters as
the drawing of election districts and the creation of party lists to ensure as best it can that it will prevail and by a
substantial margin”.

(5) Reflect at least occasional responsiveness to public opinion.

(6) Create “mechanisms to ensure that the amount of dissent does not exceed the level it regards as desirable.”
Tushnet cites Singapore as an example of an authoritarian constitutionalist state, and connects the concept to that of
hybrid regimes.

Within authoritarian systems, there may be nominally democratic institutions such as political parties, legislatures and
elections, but they are managed in a way so as to entrench authoritarian regimes. Within democracies, parties serve
to coordinate the pursuit of interests for like-minded citizens, whereas in authoritarian systems, they are a way for
authoritarian leaders to find capable elites for the regime.[9] In a democracy, a legislature is intended to represent the
diversity of interests among citizens, whereas authoritarians use legislatures to signal their own restraint towards
other elites as well as to monitor other elites who pose a challenge to the regime.

Fraudulent elections may serve the role of signalling the strength of the regime (to deter elites from challenging the
regime) and forcing other elites to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime. By contrast, in democracies, free and fair
elections are used to select representatives who represent the will of the citizens. Elections may also motivate
authoritarian party members to strengthen patron–client and information-gathering networks, which strengthens the
authoritarian regime. Elections may also motivate members of the ruling class to provide public goods.

According to a 2018 study, most party-led dictatorships regularly hold popular elections. Prior to the 1990s, most of
these elections had no alternative parties or candidates for voters to choose. Since the end of the Cold War, about
two-thirds of elections in authoritarian systems allow for some opposition, but the elections are structured in a way to
heavily favor the incumbent authoritarian regime.

Hindrances to free and fair elections in authoritarian systems may include:

 Control of the media by the authoritarian incumbents.

 Interference with opposition campaigning.
 Electoral fraud.
 Violence against opposition.
 Large-scale spending by the state in favor of the incumbents.
 Permitting of some parties, but not others.
 Prohibitions on opposition parties, but not independent candidates.
 Allowing competition between candidates within the incumbent party, but not those who are not in
the incumbent party.
Reviving Democratic Ideals
Democratic ideals are an expression used to refer to personal qualities or standards of government behavior that are
felt to be essential for the continuation of a democratic policy. Advocates for causes across the political spectrum use
this expression in attempting to engage in persuasion, particularly by contrasting some situation which has been
allowed to continue for pragmatic or social reasons, but which those advocating an opportunity, and that equality is a
democratic ideal. Other times, advocates of one political outlook or another will use the expression to energize
support among their constituencies, despite knowing that their political opponents use precisely the same phrase to
do precisely the same thing.

While democracy was rare before modern times, democratic ideals were originally conceived by ancient
philosophers. Early examples of democracies include the Ancient Roman Empire, where they collectively agreed that
there was to be annual elections for the Romans magistrates, as well as have them be checked internally by two or
more colleagues. Another example of early democracy was in Athens where they implemented a system of direct
democracy. At the time, decisions were made by an assembly open to all adult male citizens. However, due to the
time period, the levels of democracy were limited; they denied political rights to children, women and immigrants, as
well as having slaves. Therefore, there were very few citizens who did have political rights, and so this made up a
small proportion of the population of the time. In the 20th century, T. H. Marshall proposed what he believed to be
central democratic ideals in his seminal essay on citizenship, citing three different kinds of rights: civil rights that are
the basic building blocks of individual freedom; political rights, which include the rights of citizens to participate in
order to exercise political power; and finally social rights, which include the right to basic economic welfare and
security.[6] Frequently the importance of human rights is listed as a central democratic ideal, as well as instilling in
military and civilian governmental personnel the attitudes and methods which will prevent their actions from infringing
on those rights. The United States Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States is a prime example of the
democratic ideal of human rights and liberties being implemented in the foundation of a country’s governance. These
individual freedoms include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial.
Voter enfranchisement and political participation are two key democratic ideals that ensure the engagement of
citizens in the political sphere. Who has the right to suffrage has changed over the centuries and universal suffrage is
necessary for a nation to be considered a democracy and not a dictatorship.

Democratic ideals are often cited as a reason for patriotism, for example Woodrow Wilson’s argument that America
needed to enter World War I in order to make the world “safe for democracy”.

Features of ideal democracy

At a minimum, an ideal democracy would have the following features:

Effective participation. Before a policy is adopted or rejected, members of the democratic have the opportunity to
make their views about the policy known to other members.

Equality in voting. Members of the democratic have the opportunity to vote for or against the policy, and all votes
are counted as equal.

Informed electorate. Members of the democratic have the opportunity, within a reasonable amount of time, to learn
about the policy and about possible alternative policies and their likely consequences.

Citizen control of the agenda. The democratic, and only the democratic, decides what matters are placed on the
decision-making agenda and how they are placed there. Thus, the democratic process is “open” in the sense that the
democratic can change the policies of the association at any time.

Inclusion. Each and every member of the democratic is entitled to participate in the association in the ways just
described.
Fundamental rights. Each of the necessary features of ideal democracy prescribes a right that is itself a necessary
feature of ideal democracy: thus, every member of the dēmos has a right to communicate with others, a right to have
his voted counted equally with the votes of others, a right to gather information, a right to participate on an equal
footing with other members, and a right, with other members, to exercise control of the agenda. Democracy,
therefore, consists of more than just political processes; it is also necessarily a system of fundamental rights.

In modern representative democracies, the features of ideal democracy, to the extent that they exist, are realized
through a variety of political institutions. These institutions, which are broadly similar in different countries despite
significant differences in constitutional structure, were entirely new in human history at the time of their first
appearance in Europe and the United States in the 18th century. Among the most important of them is naturally the
institution of representation itself, through which all major government decisions and policies are made by popularly
elected officials, who are accountable to the electorate for their actions. Other important institutions include:

Free, fair, and frequent elections. Citizens may participate in such elections both as voters and as candidates
(though age and residence restrictions may be imposed).

Freedom of expression. Citizens may express themselves publicly on a broad range of politically relevant subjects
without fear of punishment (see freedom of speech).

Independent sources of information. There exist sources of political information that are not under the control of
the government or any single group and whose right to publish or otherwise disseminate information is protected by
law; moreover, all citizens are entitled to seek out and use such sources of information.

Freedom of association. Citizens have the right to form and to participate in independent political organizations,
including parties and interest groups.

Institutions like these developed in Europe and the United States in various political and historical circumstances, and
the impulses that fostered them were not always themselves democratic. Yet, as they developed, it became
increasingly apparent that they were necessary for achieving a satisfactory level of democracy in any political
association as large as a nation-state.

The relation between these institutions and the features of ideal democracy that are realized through them can be
summarized as follows. In an association as large as a nation-state, representation is necessary for effective
participation and for citizen control of the agenda; free, fair, and frequent elections are necessary for effective
participation and for equality in voting; and freedom of expression, independent sources of information, and freedom
of association are each necessary for effective participation, an informed electorate, and citizen control of the
agenda.

The Rise of China and its impact on global trade

(To do yourself as a project)