Political debate requires us to distinguish between what is principled and what is practical, to avoid both pure ideology and technocracy.
Politics is as much about theory as it is about action. Political actors, especially those in power, must constantly make practical decisions, and to do so they must base their decisions on the following principles[1]. But principles are always abstract and theoretical. Consequently, they do not immediately dictate action. It is the very task of politicians to move cautiously from universal principles to specific actions.
So, since politics is inseparable from debate, particularly in a democracy, political debate also has these two essential sides. On the principled side, intellectual debate - a clash of abstract, philosophical ideas - sees fundamental philosophical orientations, schools of thought and sometimes irreconcilable worldviews clash. This is the debate fundamental, insofar as it concerns the nature of things (such as the individual or the state).
Read also | Poorly formulated questions undermine the quality of debate
On the other hand, the debate must focus on the decisions to be made and the actions to be taken. This type of debate is necessary on two distinct levels. First, it must take place among those who agree on the principles, but who may disagree on their application. Secondly, it must take place among those who disagree on principles, with the aim of forging compromises. Two seemingly irreconcilable positions of principle can sometimes coincide in the practical means they wish to adopt. It is also this debate that responds to the need to agree on a position that can satisfy, at least in part, a majority of the parties involved.
If we are to keep in mind this distinction between two essential aspects of politics, and therefore of political debate, it is to avoid turning it into a caricature of itself, in either direction. If it becomes too theoretical, politics becomes ideological and is reduced, in practice, to a verbal confrontation of ideas, resulting in bad debate and bad politics. If it claims to be purely practical, politics becomes technocracy, which is just one of its distorted avatars, falsely claiming to dispense with principles, when in fact it is merely concealing its own.
In practice, the alternative is never presented in such clear-cut terms. Nevertheless, understanding it remains an invaluable tool for pinpointing the nature of political debates, which are often made up of an extremely complex interweaving of sub-problems, some rather practical, others theoretical. This is undoubtedly true of all the great oppositions characteristic of modern politics: liberalism versus socialism, free trade versus protectionism, conservatism versus progressivism, and so on.
Read also | Neither debate without reason nor reason without debate
It is therefore essential to formulate debates in the best possible way, breaking them down into as many sub-questions as necessary, in order to ensure their quality. It is the role of the media, among others, to do this preliminary work and, if possible, to be the forum for fruitful discussions. In any case, this is the role we have set ourselves at Regard Libre.
Write to the author: antoine.bernhard@leregardlibre.com
Every month, a member of the editorial team takes a stand on a subject related to the issues addressed in Le Regard Libre.
You have just read an open-access editorial from our print edition (Le Regard Libre N°115). Debates, analyses, cultural news: subscribe to support us and get access to all our content!
[1]Even the cynic who acts with the sole aim of enriching himself acts according to a principle that motivates his actions: enriching himself, precisely.
French 
German 
English