The Anti-Future Mentality
Before heading into this article, I would like to establish that this is not trying to present a fully realised ideological framework for a new political belief system. Instead it is simply trying to roughly capture a mindset and mentality which can be seen in many political systems at the moment and one which can be found in certain areas of the Northern Irish political system. For the purpose of the article, we will call that mindset ‘anti-future politics’.
-Explaining Anti-Future Politics
At its core, anti-Future politics is a simple phenomenon which can be seen in many political parties from different time periods and different systems. The fundamental principle of anti-future politics is that a political identity/party/ideology completely abandons the idea of working towards what the future should look like and retreats into the safer position of simply describing what the future should not look like. This does not refer directly to populism, however it does appear that populist movements can easily slip into an anti-future mentality. Additionally, this mentality is not just a brand of conservatism, as conservatism (in most of its forms) does have a vision for the future, even if that vision for the future is to regress to a previous time period or to simply maintain the status quo. In one hypothetical example, an anti-future mentality in politics becomes obvious when the political party or movement begins defining itself in contrast to its main opposition rather than pushing itself forward into a specific direction of movement to create a conceivable future. In doing so, the party stagnates in its vision and becomes wholly reliant upon preventing the opposition from achieving its goals. Leaving the party without a concise future outside of the prevention of another ideologies preferred vision.
In my own conception of what a political party should be, the adoption of anti-future politics is like a death bell being struck and an acceptance of inevitable decline (if an anti-future mentality is at the core of the party). Many will have different interpretations of what a political party is but my own interpretation is that a political organisation must stand for something in its own microcosm (even when their opposition is removed from the equation). If a political party is not able to tell me what the future will look like under their stewardship, then I do not believe that party has much worth within the logic of a democratic political system. That is why anti-future politics is often a sign that a political party may well be in its declining stages if they adopt such a mentality. The political parties who are able to avoid such a mentality will be able to have an easier time winning over political support if they can accurately communicate a pseudo-realistic vision for the future. Yet, I would not call the opposite of an anti-future mentality ‘future politics’ or a ‘pro-future mindset’, as in that instance we are effectively talking about the adoption of a default mentality which most political parties should have. It is the presence of anti-Future politics which is abnormal. This article will use the lens of anti-future politics to look at political parties within Stormont and neighbouring political systems.
-DUP vs UUP
At the moment, a solid example of an anti-future mentality can be seen in the DUP with the reverse being true of the UUP (as things stand). The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) have defined themselves wholly upon their opposition, rather than any internal view of what Northern Ireland should look like moving forward. While their manifestos is filled with policy objectives, they can often be boiled down to political platitudes which serve little to actually give the reader an idea of what the vision of the DUP is, while most of the decisions and speeches the party deliver revolve around what they do not want to see occur. Even their approach to policy within Stormont can be looked at as an example of a party who do not know where they want to go, with a substantial lack of Private Member’s Bills being put forward by the DUP in the last year.
This, recently, stands in contrast to the new look UUP who are creating a unique identity under their new leader Doug Beattie and forming an actual idea of what the future should look like under his stewardship. That future may not be to everyone's liking (even some in his own party have raised concerns) but, at the very least, it could present a clearly defined vision of what the party wants to achieve in the coming years. Every interview or speech from Beattie in recent times has felt like a succinct addition to a developing vision (surprising for a party that was resigned to the role of DUP-lite not long ago).
In a cruel twist of fate for the DUP, they now appear to be clawing for some identifiable image or obvious path. If the Lucidtalk polls are even slightly true, the DUP have dropped a noticeable level of support over the past year, even with their recent bounce back. Many will automatically attribute the DUPs downfall to their internal divisions and difficulties with the protocol; however I believe that the real problem for the party comes from a deeper inconsistency in their viewpoint. The DUP do not know what they want the future to look like, so when they were asked what they wanted the protocol to become, they had no realistic answer that did not rely on dysfunctional rhetoric. When stripped of the rhetoric, there is little to fall back on and no core which can be used to build their new path. To add to this, their recent bounce back was only facilitated by progress being made in the EU protocol negotiations which provided a potential future for the union - leading some voters to believe there may still be a potential future with the DUP.
It was Beattie’s party who was able to look at the protocol before the negotiations and set out a manageable path and present a future for their newly found supporter base. Going forward, the UUP have an ideology and identity which can be relied upon when the usual political rhetoric doesn’t work, as the core values and ideas remain in service of the vision which they wish to achieve. The main concern for the UUP now is the fact some in their own party do not agree with that vision and this could possibly create division going forward. Even with that being the case, the fact that the UUP have some kind of vision means that they are somewhat future-proofed, the DUP are not.
-Sinn Fein in the South vs FF
Even if we go down south, the anti-future mentality can be seen in a different set of circumstances. Fianna Fail (effectively a neo-liberal party) now find themselves questioning every decision the party has to make. The recent FF think-in (a tradition in the south where political parties hold internal conferences before the new term to discuss their thoughts) was supposedly surrounded by various questions about how the party is meant to move forward and where Martin could take the party if he was to remain.
There was a time when Fianna Fail’s ideal future was obvious and that vision for the future was achieved with the success of the Celtic Tiger. The issue for the party now is where can they go when the future they once worked towards crumbled in the wake of a global financial crisis. They have no clear idea of the future and, much like the DUP, often rely upon preaching what they are not rather than what they are. They warn people of the potentially disastrous future which the other parties in the south offer, while presenting little or no discernable future which they want to create themselves.
The party who takes the brunt of FF’s criticism is Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein have, in the south at the very least, rarely engaged in anti-future politics. Instead they have carved out very easily communicated policies which have won over some of FF’s own voter base. The ability to actually present a definable and likeable future has to be one of the reasons why Sinn Fein have found so much success in recent years. Instead of trudging through a political malaise, Sinn Fein have actively attempted to answer the south’s most divisive issues and created a potential reality which people from varying backgrounds view as attractive. Whether their goals are achievable can be argued but their message has been heard and accepted by many.
(This would bring me onto the section of this article where I do the usual, but still necessary, bashing of Neoliberalism)
It would seem that one of the issues which Fianna Fail and other post-neo-liberal parties suffer from is a lack of future-proofing. After all, they achieved the future which they wanted but it has failed to answer many of our times prevailing questions. Where once neo-liberalism looked like the most obvious answer to many of the West’s problems, their answers now feel hollow and the future presented by the ideology feels out of place. That would, in my opinion, be because there is no future that neo-liberalism is able to present anymore. There is not even a conservative neoliberalism which attempts to keep the status quo as the status quo is completely out of the hands of the neo-liberals who have created a globalised financial system that not even they can control. Fianna Fail’s Neoliberal past has left them without a discernible future and without a set of core ideological principles to rely on in modern Ireland. Thus, without a discernible future, Fianna Fail has to take the position of opposition to other futures rather than offer a personal vision of their own.
The example can be dragged out in other regions and election results. Starmer has been unable to define the Labour party as anything other than the anti-tories. Hilary Clinton was unable to present the Democratic electoral bid in 2016 as anything other than the non-Trump option with Biden almost falling to the same fate. In each case, the political candidate or party who is not able to clearly define their own identity and their potential future is unable to find electoral success. They give the electorate nothing to cling to or hope for.
-Conclusion
The anti-future mentality is not an ideology in itself but a mindset which many political actors and parties seem to become stuck within. It does feel like that mindset was once an advantage, with many neoliberal politicians refusing to define the future on the occasions they occupied an opposition as the lack of clear vision provided them with a fluidity when arguing against those with a clearly defined vision. However in recent times, the anti-future mentality appears completely unacceptable to many electorates who have become familiar with platitudes often repeated by those who possess such a mentality. The question would then become: how do you escape this mindset? The answer is as simple as you would think it should be: create a vision for the future.
