Literalism produces static politicians with stable actions

Literalism produces static politicians with stable actions

The existence of static political agents is unimaginable without literal understanding and application of texts i.e books, legal or religious texts that inform their action.

Given literalists’ minimal application of logic and reasoning, their scope of understanding of possibilities is governed and shaped by what is dictated by texts rather than what is approved to be possible as deduced from logical reasoning.

The deficiency in their cognitive ability to map out what new social, political and economic realities present, which necessitate changes in strategies, propels them to give insufficient acknowledgment or recognition to the value of arguments, which are based on logic and reasoning, and they hardly pay attention to arguments put forward by their counterparts from other political spectrum.

As a result of this, change, flexibility, compromise, and pragmatism are alien to their action plan. Thus, their actions and strategies are static, stable, consistent and out of touch with the new reality.

As they have uncompromising believe in text, they hardly put forward a constructive and convincing argument without referring to the constitution.

Reflecting on the politics landscape of The Gambia, it is uneasy to put your hand on politicians whose understanding of the dynamics of the politics and response to these dynamics are dictated by principles driven from certain texts.

They usually attempt to make the reality workable to their principles; yet, they hardly move an inch to adjust to that reality.

To transport people through their ideological canons, they put their trust in the text, which is quoted unnecessarily to prove their side of the story and justify their actions.

Despite their strong adherence to their core beliefs, as dictated by text, their political gain is reflected by the gradual growth of their followers, who are drawn from specific social and economic classes.

Thanks to the wider gulf between their core belief and that of the populace, they hardly win the hearts and the minds of the electorates.

Comments are closed.