Power and Imagination by Leonoor Post

The first ever election in which I will be able to cast my vote is getting closer and closer every day. If the Dutch cabinet hadn’t fallen this summer, I would’ve had to wait for another three years. Instead, I’ll be voting in October. That means it is my turn to announce who I think is fit to decide my future. As someone passionate about making the world a better place, I have been reading some agendas to orient myself. GroenLinks-PvdA (a collaboration between the Green Party and the Labour Party) was the second-biggest party in the last election, and is naturally trying to continue growing as a progressive leftist party. Their agenda did not always paint them as such, though.

Reactionary groups believe in an imagined past. Progressive groups believe in an imagined future. However, the belief in the reachability of that future has been slipping, something that has major consequences for the way that progressives like the GroenLinks-PvdA organise their political campaigns.

Reactionary groups believe in an imagined past. Progressive groups believe in an imagined future.

Reactionary versus progressive

Femke Halsema, currently the mayor of Amsterdam, was the political leader of GroenLinks (‘GreenLeft’), one of the biggest leftist parties of the Netherlands, between 2002 and 2010. In her essay Macht en Verbeelding (Power and Imagination), written in 2018 for the Dutch Month of Philosophy, Femke Halsema argues that the success of progressive political movements is entirely dependent on their ability to imagine the future they want, and, in that way, believe that future to be possible. 

To contrast that statement, here are a few sentences from the introductory text to the new agenda of the GroenLinks-PvdA that feel almost semi-reactionary:

“As long as we visit each other more again […] People cannot trust anymore on what should be needless to say in a rich country like the Netherlands […] We will make sure that those who work can get by again […] We will make sure that the foundation is in place, that the Netherlands work for everyone again.”

This election agenda is a self-declared “beautiful agenda full of classic leftist, progressive plans”. The writers try to appeal to voters by evoking familiarity and reminiscing about times when leftist parties were conventionally the largest or second-largest in the Netherlands. The introductory text aims to give readers a sense of comfort, bordering on sentimentality. The GroenLinks-PvdA believes that voters want stability. Yet achieving stability amid a crisis is nearly impossible. In the midst of a hurricane, you should not prioritise finding the eye of the storm but instead focus on getting out of it altogether.

Let me be clear: I agree with most of the plans of GroenLinks-PvdA. That does not mean that I fail to notice how most of those sentences could be found in nearly all reactionary or evangelical political party agendas. They communicate no belief, or even a glimmer of hope, for a better future. A self-respecting progressive party should not focus on the past, but instead sketch a vision of a bright future.

It speaks to how widespread pessimism and fatalism have become that these political parties believe the only way to attract voters is by giving them a small inkling of comfort and a vision, not of an ambitious future, but of a world they understand. A world in which democracy works alright, the social security system more or less gets by, and fascism isn’t on a horrifying rise in one of Europe’s biggest allies.

Realistic or fatalistic?

GroenLinks-PvdA strongly emphasizes that they are announcing ‘realistic’ plans. Femke Halsema explains this development within progressive parties by bringing their fear of being seen as extreme to the light. Political opponents are waiting at every word, hoping to find something they can label as the ‘extreme left’. As a consequence, progressive parties proactively critique themselves.

Progressive values are seen as utopian ideas that are only useful in guiding plans in a certain direction and to be held in the background of the mind while leading a country. If politicians do not believe in the possibility of the future they preach, seeing it only as a faraway ideal, how can there be space for truly productive conversation and motivation? If politicians are only playing pretend, who has a say in the very real game of power and democracy? 

If one loses sight of their imagination, the progressive becomes a ghost, haunting the political climate, devoid of any substantial power, and the right takes center stage.

Ethics aren’t absolute. However, the promise the left makes to its voters is that it will care for everybody in its society. If even that isn’t reachable anymore, we are discounting our own agency. To care for the world is a decision made by ourselves, not by others. Often, we can be made to feel helpless, powerless and alone, but other people should not make us stop caring; they should not diminish our hope for a better future. 

The only better future that GroenLinks-PvdA seem to be able to conjure at this moment in time is a blurry vision of a just-okay past. However, the future is not yet decided, and we should do well not to forget that. If one loses sight of their imagination, the progressive becomes a ghost, haunting the political climate, devoid of any substantial power, and the right takes center stage.