The Unimportance of Being Centrist

You witness an event.

You form a judgement on it.

You then accumulate that judgement in a mental filing cabinet that includes “good,” “bad,” and, “neutral.”

Except — there is no neutral. Neutrality is a false concept that we believe to be an offshoot of rationality. “The more rationally I analyse this situation, the more I’ll divorce myself from the left wing and right wing points of view on it, and come to my own independent, *neutral* point of view on it.” Except you can’t. To ascribe neutrality on humans is to ascribe perfect objectivity to our species.

Please. Blind taste tests tell us we can’t tell the difference between Coca Cola and Pepsi yet we, a selfish constantly warring species, will come upon neutral and fair judgments on matters far deeper than the flavour of a Cola fizzy drink.

The longer I’ve spent time around, or observed, those who claim to be “centrists” or “neutral” the more I’ve found their points of view to be hollow. I can hear an argument for why not taking a position is valid in some circumstances; but for one’s essential lens of judgement is to not take a position until the dust is settled under all circumstances? Pardon my French, but that is absolute and utter bullshit.

From the very specific perspective of Pakistan, “Centrism” to me is not a set of values. It is not belief if a just outcome. It’s not even realpolitik because none of our political actors in Pakistan are centrist in any meaning of the word.

No. Those who proclaim “centrism” as their political raison d’être are driven by a higher purpose. A purpose far more important than how we as a nation fare. A purpose with more depth than the aspirations of millions who follow some political party. A purpose that outdoes anyone else’s argument no matter how sound. The centrist must be “right” or “correct” above all else. The centrist exists to judge from afar as events unfold, and then swoops in to tell the remainder of us that if we had all stood by the sidelines and done nothing we would have been just as correct as they are.

Correct.

Right.

Accurate.

That is all the centrist cares about. His or her own primacy over those who got involved in the messy, dirty, disgusting, mud-flinging game that is national and internal politics. The centrist will never claim to be on the left, nor on the right, but will shift shape with such ease to whomever the winner of the argument is so as to appear to have always been correct.

Of all political stances to take, centrism is the most selfish. It makes libertarianism look like a communist utopia. The centrist is only involved for their vainglorious needs of being accurate. They may never have spoken a word about an issue. Or they may have spoken lightly in favour of both left and right arguments. But they never picked a side. Because picking a side is anathema to their central philosophy: self-aggrandisement.

Bypassing skin in the game and fly-bying after all is said is done is central to the centrist ethos. The blackhole that consumes all matter around them, and then tosses it out with a smug “well, sucks to be you.”

Except. It must be rather terrible to be a centrist. To understand the world only as a boardgame set where you make your move after everyone else has. No one will ever accept the centrist as the winner because the centrist just occupied the middle space with no commitment to it. They just wanted a space. A space where they could erect a podium from which they could scream, “I told you so,” to the plebs who took a principled side.

This necessity the centrist feels towards being right. To be lauded for not having been wrong, at least. This borderline violent egotism that flatlines real movements for justice and self determination because, well, “both sides are wrong.” This necessity they seem to feel borders on the criminal for me.

What precisely about Pakistan’s centre as it exists makes you think this is a viable option moving forward? How is this a stable order that will ensure a better quality of life for those living and from here? I content that it simply isn’t. It is in so many ways the most selfish point of view to adopt because the centrist must feel the need to pop out from behind your TV screen or your social media timeline for a “haha I told you so!” when never having taken a position.

I’ve been pilloried by hundreds for a poor opinion I may have held. In the moment I may have felt the pillory to be unfair or unnecessarily reactionary. However, when you keep hearing the same from those you know well and respect, and those you don’t, you enable yourself to adjust. To walk a mile in their shoes. Centrism rids you of that. It turns you into an automaton that just absorbs information, makes callous but non definitive remarks upon it when it comes to position, and then pop out from behind a curtain to tell us you knew all along this is how it’ll go.

Alright, sure. You proved yourself right. After having spent a while reading up on the varying reactions to an event (goodness, I hope centrists read up before their prognostications.) And to make matters worse, the centrist then mocks the rest. As though adopting their position of public nonchalance was the best means all along, even though they could have never got to their “gotcha!” moment if not for people taking positions that they could judge from afar.

Sadly, the centrist is correct. The centrist is one who opens the Gates of Lahore for invading armies to save their own self. The centrist thinks Vichy France is a legitimate idea because they get to survive. The centrist stores Nazi gold in their banks.

The centrist may well be correct. A shell of a person. And for shells, hollow is perfect.