Reconciling diverging political sentiment between cities and the countryside
Izabela Zawartka proposes an approach to thinking about the political division between city and countryside.
Election after election, polling data from around the world seems to suggest a common trend: the growing divergence of political views between cities and the countryside. Though this observance greatly generalises and oversimplifies the individuality of residents’ political beliefs, such a large-scale phenomenon cannot be entirely ignored. Not only can this division seriously threaten national cohesion, it constructs a political arena in which parties and their candidates fixate on strategies for how best to win electoral “numbers games.”
While the underlying cause for deviance in voting preferences amounts to interplay between a combination of factors, the mentality one has regarding the notion of change may offer a partial explanation. In politics, the attitude towards how best to achieve progress marks a fundamental difference between traditional conception of “liberalism” and “conservatism.” Those who favour a liberal approach tend to advocate for policy change as a means for bringing about positive development; a typical categorisation of conservative thought, however, involves the incorporation and preservation of past characteristics.
This contrasting opinion of change can, potentially, be reflected in one’s lifestyle choices. Many who move to big cities have either relocated from the countryside or been brought up in a family in which someone has. Contrastingly, many who reside in the countryside follow a path of continuity, i.e. they carry on living where they were raised or where their family is grounded. This is not, by any means, to say that one is better than the other. They are simply different.
Nonetheless, individuals who live in, or have at one point come into contact with life in a larger urban or metropolitan setting are likely to have done so as a result of the desire for change and new perspectives. Whether it be for the purpose of pursuing education or more fulfilling career opportunities, they have undertaken the difficult process of relocation in the hopes of reshaping the course of their future. Simply put, both temporary and permanent city-dwellers have personal experience seeking change.
When framed in this way, the issue becomes a comparison between propensity to make (or be familiar with) major changes and a reliance on the tried and true ways of the past. There may, then, be a chance that those who have tackled lifestyle change, or been raised in an environment in which someone has, are likely to have a disparate outlook on making decisions in which the outcome is initially uncertain.
The widening gap between cities and the countryside is a widespread issue. Dominant conservative parties with parliamentary majorities are not necessarily successful in their nation’s key cities. As an empirical example, in Hungary and Turkey, more conservative-leaning candidates have not been able to secure the same backing in mayoral races in Budapest and Istanbul, respectively. In Poland, the ruling conservative party depends greatly on countryside voters for their majority. Consequently, a country’s political agenda may stray away from that of its major cities, introducing a lack of unity in action.
Equally dangerous is the chance for the emergence of an us vs. them mentality, by which members of a constituency clash on basis of residence location. Anger directed at fellow country men is not only upsetting, but unproductive. The smooth running of a society is based on collaboration and carefully coordinated group action. Resentment does not factor well into this picture.
This may be mere speculation. Yet, if the “attitude for change” argument is a prominent contributor to the divergence of public sentiment, it poses a significant barrier to political reconciliation. Personal experience is incredibly formative, and it can not be injected or artificially transplanted into one’s psyche. Those who have experience living in a metropolitan setting are likely to be different from those who do not.
How could this issue be systematically resolved? Quite fundamentally, it can not. There is, however, much to be said for campaigns that build national over regional solidarity, as well as for efforts to integrate an entire nation rather than divide it to achieve electoral victory. Even if city vs. countryside interests, which remain essentially different, can not be fully coalesced, both parties in power and governments as a whole have a responsibility to aim at the reconciliation of rivalries. If not, this issue can evolve into a critical juncture for politics: one that may produce undesirable and insurmountable effects.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.