In our political lexicon, it often feels like the label “neutral” is unacceptable. In the lead up to the 2016 election on Facebook, where I am active, it was quite instructive to observe how “neutrals” were treated. No one is “neutral” argued the partisans. To them, the label was nothing but a way to disguise and hide one’s true political identity. Everyone had a choice it seemed – to either reveal their political identity or have one assigned to them.
The partisans had a particular definition of neutrality. In their view, to be politically “neutral” meant being “apolitical” – you could not have any views on national political issues or if you did those views could not be expressed in public spaces. If they were expressed and appeared to be politically aligned the “neutral” courted displeasure. It felt as though “neutrality” and being politically active were mutually exclusive.
Those who wore the label counter argued that it simply meant they owed no allegiance to any of our political parties, especially the duopoly. The usual refrain was “I am neither NDC nor NPP.”
Another major election is approaching, and I am beginning to observe a resurgence of conversations about this political label. In the words of a young man in that popular series “24” (A TV show in the USA), “I feel compelled to intervene.”
Are There Neutrals?
This question has been answered in different and very interesting ways. Let me add another way of wrestling with this issue of neutrality in our political spaces. To do that, I turn once again to data from the Afrobarometer survey.
First, there are Ghanaians who do not identify with any political party in Ghana. We can call them “neutrals.” My proxy measure is the survey question where citizens are asked “do you feel close to any particular political party?” which has been asked nine different times between 1999 and 2022.
Two key observations. First, on average, sixty percent (60%) are not “neutral” because they say they feel close to a political party; thirty-nine percent (39%) are “neutral” because they say they do not feel close to any political party; and one percent (1%) simply say they “don’t know.” Second, the percentage of Ghanaians who are “neutral” has grown by sixteen percentage points (+16) between Round 1(1999) and Round 9 (2022).
Second, neutrality does not necessarily mean apolitical. This is how I gauge it. The survey asks if respondents voted in the most recent national election. The question has been repeated eight times. Using the responses to the question, I examine what percentage of “neutrals” (those who say they do not feel close to any political party) answered “Yes.” On average, eight out of ten (76%) “neutrals” do vote. Over time though, that has declined slightly by about five percentage points (82% to 77%).
I proceeded to further look at the survey question which asks respondents if they discuss politics. Among “neutrals,” across eight rounds of the survey, about six out of ten (57%) say they discuss politics.
In short, there are “neutrals,” but perhaps two types – a) those who are politically active because they do vote and discuss politics; and b) those who are not politically active because neither do they vote nor discuss politics. Probably there is a hybrid group who may vote but not discuss politics and vice-versa.
Parting Thoughts
In a political environment where public discourse easily breaks along partisan lines, it is difficult to imagine a politically “neutral” Ghanaian. This is complicated if that environment is characterized by strong voices on national issues. How does one exercise voice in a partisan environment while remaining “neutral’?
This is my position. We must constantly remember that citizens are free to choose their political label. Furthermore, no citizen is duty bound to reveal nor explain their chosen political label. And finally engaging in public discourse on national issues should not be contingent upon the political label citizens wear or not. If that were the case only partisans will have a voice.
If the “neutral” label is unacceptable let me propose a set from which everyone can choose. In Stephen Nathanson’s “Should We Consent To Be Governed- A short introduction to political philosophy,” he identifies four types of citizens and their relationship with government. I often think of citizens and political parties using the prototypes. In essence these are the choices and their definitions – a) The Super Patriot – my party right or wrong; b) The Cynic – all political parties are the same; c) The Anarchist – political parties are not needed; and d) The Critical Citizen – my party when right.
Whatever the choice including “neutral” dear partisans, keep this in mind – eight out of ten (76%) do vote. A share of the “neutral” vote helps.