Politics is the domain in which meaning must act before it settles.
Where science may suspend judgment, and scripture may preserve tension, politics cannot. Decisions must be made under conditions of uncertainty, plurality, and pressure. Futures diverge. Costs must be borne. Time closes.
And it is precisely this condition that politics cannot tolerate.
Undecidability as Structural Threat
Undecidability arises when:
-
multiple futures remain possible,
-
consequences cannot be fully anticipated,
-
ethical costs are distributed unevenly,
-
no decision preserves all values simultaneously.
In such conditions, delay is itself a decision — often the worst one.
Politics exists to cut through this space.
The Political Cut
Every political act enacts a decisive cut:
-
this policy, not that one,
-
this future, not its alternatives,
-
these lives prioritised, those deferred,
-
this risk accepted, others displaced.
And it is imposed under conditions where no option is innocent.
Intolerance as Coordination Pressure
The intolerance of undecidability emerges where hesitation threatens coordination:
-
ambiguity fractures alignment,
-
plural reasoning stalls action,
-
reflexive doubt weakens authority.
In response, political systems intensify constraint:
-
simplification of narratives,
-
moralisation of choices,
-
delegitimation of hesitation,
-
construction of enemies or obstacles.
These moves are not accidental. They are mechanisms for collapsing possibility into action.
The Fantasy of Necessity
Political rhetoric often reframes imposed cuts as inevitabilities:
-
“There was no alternative.”
-
“The science demanded it.”
-
“History required it.”
-
“Security left no choice.”
This is not deception in the ordinary sense. It is intolerance of visible undecidability.
Necessity conceals the cut by denying that other futures were ever live.
The Suppressed Remainder
Every decision leaves a remainder:
-
excluded perspectives,
-
deferred harms,
-
moral costs carried by others,
-
futures that might have been.
This remainder does not disappear. It returns as:
-
protest,
-
resentment,
-
polarisation,
-
historical revision,
-
cycles of backlash.
Political instability is often not failure of governance, but the resurfacing of suppressed undecidability.
Reading Political Conflict Relationally
A relational reading does not ask:
-
which side is right,
-
which narrative is true,
-
which ideology should prevail.
It asks instead:
-
where undecidability was collapsed,
-
how the cut was justified,
-
who bears the remainder,
-
and what futures were foreclosed.
Intolerance marks the point where the system could no longer hold plurality.
Responsibility Without Resolution
Relational analysis does not offer reconciliation or consensus.
It offers something harder:
-
acknowledgement that political decisions are always partial,
-
recognition that innocence is unavailable,
-
vigilance about where costs are displaced,
-
attention to the remainder rather than denial of it.
Political responsibility begins not with certainty, but with awareness of the cut.
Closing
To read political intolerance relationally is not to refuse decision.
It is to refuse the fantasy that decision abolishes responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment