We are confronted with a political landscape increasingly dominated by parties stripped of ideological conviction, we have entities that float aimlessly in a sea of expediency, their moral compasses dismantled in the name of “practical governance.” This erosion of principle is often excused with a convenient fiction: that the urgent work of poverty alleviation, infrastructure development, and social progress cannot coexist with ideological clarity. To prioritize roads, schools, or hospitals, the argument goes, one must first discard the “distraction” of values, vision, or deeper purpose. This is not merely a flawed premise; it is a dangerous surrender. By divorcing political action from ideological grounding, we reduce parties to empty shells; vessels easily hijacked by opportunists, patronage networks, and elites who exploit public office for private gain.
The fallacy here lies in conflating ideology with rigidity. True ideology is not dogma. It is not a set of immutable commandments but a framework of shared values and objectives that anchor a society’s aspirations. To reject ideology wholesale is to confuse the map for the terrain. Consider the post-war European social democracies, where socialist principles of equity were woven into capitalist engines of growth, creating systems that balanced innovation with welfare. Or the anticolonial movements of the 20th century, whose ideological commitments to sovereignty and justice birthed nations while dismantling empires. These were not projects of blind dogma but of principled adaptation; proof that ideology, when dynamic and responsive, fuels progress rather than stifling it.
Yet today, parties increasingly operate as transactional entities, their platforms reduced to checklists of populist promises. Without ideological coherence, their policies lack roots. They chase short-term wins, a bridge here, a subsidy there, while sidestepping harder questions of equity, sustainability, or justice. This approach does not neutralize exploitation; it enables it. A party without principles is a party without guardrails. It becomes a marketplace where influence is auctioned to the highest bidder, where public funds are diverted to private pockets under the guise of “development,” and where loyalty is traded for favors rather than earned through vision. The result is a citizenry disillusioned, not because they reject pragmatism, but because they recognize the void where conviction ought to reside.
This is not a call for inflexibility. As Leo Tolstoy reminds us, freethinkers are those “willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs.” A healthy democracy demands parties capable of this very balance: grounded in core values yet open to evolution. Ideology, in this sense, is not a cage but a foundation. A party committed to environmental justice, for instance, might embrace nuclear energy as a transitional tool while resisting fossil fuel lobbying. A conservative movement rooted in fiscal responsibility might reject austerity policies that deepen inequality, opting instead for targeted investments in human capital.
The crisis we face is not one of ideology itself, but of its misapplication, and worse, its abandonment. To dismiss ideology as incompatible with progress is to confuse the scaffolding for the shackles. A ship’s mast is not a constraint; it is what allows the sails to catch the wind. Similarly, a party’s ideological framework provides the structure through which policies gain coherence and purpose. Without it, governance becomes a series of reactive gestures, devoid of direction or accountability.
What, then, is the way forward? We must reclaim ideology as a living, breathing force; a blend of ethical clarity and intellectual humility. Political parties ought to foster cultures of critical thinking, where dissent is not heresy but a vital mechanism for growth. They must articulate shared objectives be it equity, liberty, sustainability, or solidarity etc that transcend electoral cycles and bind policymakers to a common mission. This requires courage: the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, to resist the lure of quick fixes, and to prioritize long-term flourishing over immediate applause.
In the end, the choice is stark. A politics without ideology is a politics without memory or horizon, a myopic scramble for power that sacrifices collective dignity at the altar of individual ambition. But a politics revitalized by principled thought, tempered by freethinking and anchored in shared purpose, can rise above exploitation. It can imagine and build a world where progress is measured not only in roads and bridges, but in justice, wisdom, and the quiet, enduring strength of a people united by something greater than fear or greed.
Tolstoy’s freethinker, unshackled by prejudice, unafraid of dissonance, is not a relic of the past but a model for the future. For it is only through such thinking that we might rediscover the soul of politics, and with it, the possibility of a society worthy of its ideals.
Yoosi Banlow
Wailing from Kwasiminstim
