Radicalism is believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change. Recently, the word has been interpreted with negative connotations and confusion with extremism, which is the fact of someone having beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable. Radical ideas in politics have become associated with the work of the left and their “unrealistic” goals, and recently in my school, people have the same view about my opinions. I don’t think my views are all that radical and maybe by the end of this, you won’t either.
In my politics class at school, during our last Model Cabinet lesson when I proposed to scrap third world debt, I was confronted with a round of laughter. Similarly, when I fought against the renewal of Trident (the U.K.’s nuclear program) and spoke out for pacifism, I found the same reaction. So when did believing in economic equality and peace become an unfathomable and ungraspable concept? When did speaking our for the disadvantaged and underdogs in the global society become so wrong and revolutionary?
When two countries are at odds, our immediate solution is to exert violence to solve the issue. This is the case for most scenarios, even when country A claim they are getting involved to save the citizens of country B from a humanitarian crisis. This almost always ends up in a paradox where more innocent people are caught in the crossfire caused by the foreign military invention. Why don’t country leaders instead sit down and resolve issues civilly, rather than assuming the only rational solution is brutality and why is this idea so unfathomable? It should be within means and expectation that innocent lives that should be protected at all costs, and most people would agree with this anyway. However, when actually discussing the ways this could be implemented, the idea is conceived as a lot more unreasonable, for reasons I cannot understand.
If one cares for the environment, they are commonly labeled a hippie and their ideas and propositions are often dismissed as nonsense talk that could never be taken seriously. For example, investment in solar energy is minimized because it does not coincide with the global mood of capitalism, which seeks to maximize profit, even if switching to this type of energy source could result in lower carbon dioxide emissions and greatly reduce our dependency on unsustainable fossil fuels. Prioritizing the environment is crucial for the survival of our planet, species and all the other species suffering from the repercussions of global warming and climate change. Anyone who watched David Attenborough’s remarkable documentary series “Blue Planet II” will be aware of the devastating effect of the environmental crisis on the oceans and the life within them, knowing the problem has to be immediately addressed for any hope of redemption.
In conclusion, more debates and ideas about pressing issues need to be normalized in global politics, as most people do agree with such principles but their execution needs to be much more realistic and all in all, needs to happen.
Featured Image: Vocal Europe
