In many ways politics has always been a cutthroat business. Most of those who ended up on top in the struggle for power have historically taken every opportunity to kick their opponents when they were already reeling from defeat, seeking to prevent any chance for resurgence of opposition, forever.

One of the hallmarks of modern democracy, the acceptance of both defeat and victory in elections and peaceful change of power, has emerged with limitations on the use of force for those in power, the sense that next time the tide of opinion could turn the other way next time round, and that there is a life after success in politics. The reality of democracy has become more complex as citizens make increasing contributions to opinion-forming outside the party political system, such as through NGOs and social movements. The internet including social media pushes politicians to engage in a more fluid culture and ongoing dialogue with constituents. They cannot be sure of the permanency of electoral victory, and especially not if they lose the trust of their constituents by abusing their power after winning the vote and not demonstrating the value they add to governance of the country every day.

The past year in particular however seems to challenge these achievements. Electoral campaigns have been fought in mature democracies with a level of vitriol that few would have thought acceptable just a few years ago. The main thrust of campaigning has been dedicated to character assassination, and veracity of statements is now definitely outmoded. The media have acted as bellows fanning the flames. In many cases media channels have mindlessly, or even worse intentionally repeated whatever dross and lies have been put forward, whipping up the worst sentiments in people. Oversight bodies such as for the press but also electoral commissions did not act and are largely also not equipped with relevant powers to call the process to order and ensure accuracy and balance on facts, not just on air time. The barrage of twitter messages from politicians undermines any meaningful debate as soundbites and attacks dominate the process. Today there seems very little difference between an autocrat running symbolic elections, and how bullies run for office in supposedly democratic countries. Style and outcomes are similar, and woe to the opposition post defeat.

Generosity in politics seems gone. The contrast is sharp between those seeking, or who are at least willing to accept a continued debate with their political opponents, and those who are bent on chucking them out of the ring altogether. The climate of democracy has been transformed as the power of the state has become the partisan prize to capture at all costs.

There are many reasons why people can feel rightfully alienated with politics as usual, its wooden language, hollow phrases and a ubiquitous lack of recognition of where people are really suffering and lives are precarious. This needs to change, and is one of the drivers for the cataclysmic votes observed in several western democracies. Yet those voted into power on the back of popular disenchantment with politics are so far not excelling at changing the dynamics for those who have placed their trust in them. Many fear that they have no interest to do so.

Solutions that benefit the many need to involve many voices in their deliberation. Going through the process of gathering these and debating pros and cons demands time and effort. A bully culture and strong-man politics will do a disservice to those with least voice.  Generosity in politics is not a luxury, but of essence to serve citizens well.

The internet has enabled a style of factless and adversarial political campaigning which its founders were in fact keen to end. The web promised universal access to information and greater breadth of voices, strengthening citizens’ input and power in politics. While it has created a more open sphere of debate it has also enabled strategies of relentless attack and communications which obscure the real issues at stake and closed off space for reflection.

The question is whether the balancing elements of modern democracy, no, not the media but citizen driven action in social movements, are likely to follow the trend of aggression set in formal politics, whether civil society will adopt strategies working against bully politics, or whether it will fall in line with them for want of imagination, self-esteem, funding worries, and lack of principle. The stranglehold that state funding has on many NGOs and the much felt pressure to respond and go with the current modes of communication lets one think of the worst. Resistance is called for, but not by emulating the aggression of formal politics.