By: Yildiz Subuk, Staff Writer
Content warning: brief mentions of genocide, residential school graves, and police brutality.
Two years ago, I had a conversation with an Uber driver on the way home from Kendrick Lamar’s concert. “While I like Kendrick, I think his music is too political now to the point where it alienates some of his audience,” he said. While this comment may appear naïve or out of touch, it’s rooted in privilege. The desire to be apolitical or centrist is one that’s grown in recent years. People who have historically been discriminated against or under-represented don’t have the luxury of neutrality, and it’s even more concerning to see centrist ideas bleed into government policies.
Centrism is a political belief that emphasizes incorporating both leftist and right-wing ideas. In everyday life, centrists tend to criticize so-called extremist ideologies from both ends of the political spectrum, and insist that being “balanced” is the most rational approach to politics. While this “both sides” approach may seem rational, it doesn’t account for the fact that there are major social issues that neutrality can’t fix. Those without the privilege to stay neutral on political issues are often the ones that are harmed the most by political decisions.
Being a centrist about issues involving oppression and human rights injustices suggests we should value the oppressor as much as the oppressed. Debating a topic like whether Israel has a “right to defend itself” is incredibly problematic, especially when considering the United Nations has issued reports condemning the state for its war crimes. Israel has murdered Palestinians at an exponentially high rate. In news media, centrism often appears as a subtle downplaying of events through language choices. For example, many news publications have vaguely framed the genocide in occupied Palestinian territories as a “conflict” or “war.” Similar rhetoric appears in news articles that refer to residential school graves as “anomalies,” or downplay the extent of police brutality in Canada by comparing numbers to the US. We must stop treating centrism as a harmless difference of opinion. There is no middle ground when it comes to injustice.
Centrism is even more damaging when it appears at a governmental level, as it often does in Canadian politics. This is evident when we look at how Canada and 25 other countries abstained from voting on a decision that would allow Palestinians to be represented in the United Nations. Refraining from commenting or condemning “both sides” is not a neutral act. This vote of abstinence was made by the Canadian government because they didn’t want to choose a side, but it effectively denied Palestinians the right to self-representation.
Centrism can also take the form of pandering to both sides of the political aisle to garner as much public support as possible. According to a Maclean’s article, the federal Liberal Party has placed an emphasis on reconciliation with Indigenous communities across Canada over the years. This may come across as the Liberals breaking away from centrism, but the party’s performatism shows how neutral they are about truly acting on reconciliation. Currently, no policy changes have been made that allow Indigenous communities to protect their lands and resources.
Centrism can only be rational in a world without social inequity. Staying neutral has less to do with rationality, and more to do with comfort. When people stay neutral, it can be a form of hidden apathy toward injustices that are often the reality for many marginalized groups. Being a centrist is a privileged stance, and those who are suffering from social injustice need a more urgent approach to ensuring their rights — something that can often be a matter of life or death.
