More nuance in politics, please!

Working in politics requires loyalty and the ability to compromise, but it is possible to remain true to yourself and your authenticity amidst the swarm of spin doctors, newspeak, and tactical considerations, according to Social Democrat Daniel Toft Jakobsen.

By Jens Linde

For four consecutive years, politicians have ranked at the bottom of surveys measuring the credibility of various professional groups. At the top, you find judges, nurses, and doctors, while car dealers, real estate agents, and journalists join politicians at the bottom. Furthermore, for five of the last six years, the credibility of politicians has fallen year after year, hitting a new record low in the latest survey.
The surveys do not explain the reason for this, but commentators speculate that broken promises, spin culture, so-called newspeak—using new and positive words for otherwise negative things—and the absolute focus on power by those in positions of authority are some of the causes.
Social Democrat Daniel Toft Jakobsen was one of three members who voted against the party line when a series of immigration restrictions were passed in the Folketing at the end of January this year. Such actions demonstrate moral courage and integrity, so domino reached out to Daniel Toft Jakobsen to hear what it is like to work in a place where tactics, spin, and party considerations risk colliding with personal opinions and convictions. How do you remain authentic—and therefore honest?
It is important for me to emphasize that I do not wish to portray myself as being more conscientious than my colleagues, Daniel Toft Jakobsen begins.
When I voted against that particular bill, it was because the right to be with one's family is such a fundamental and basic value to me that I had to say what I felt and believed. But it is neither easy nor pleasant to vote against your party, he admits.

A threat to democracy
Daniel Toft Jakobsen believes that politicians must take the poor credibility ratings very seriously.
We can do a lot to change this, even if it is not always justified when politicians are under fire. Sometimes it seems as if people think that we politicians neither can nor will do anything good, and that we are indifferent to the promises we have made. And that is simply not true. But we also bear part of the responsibility ourselves, and we must take it seriously, because in the end, it is a threat to democracy, he points out.
We politicians need to get better at saying what we actually believe instead of criticizing others. We have to acknowledge that we spend too much time attacking others and too little time talking about our own positions. We probably also need to get better at making it clear what we consider to be fundamental values, rather than spending time chasing quick votes. We must show that our positions stem from values and not from tactical considerations. Or perhaps I should rather say: hopefully they stem from values and not from short-term, tactical considerations.

Yes, the opposition has good arguments
When Daniel Toft Jakobsen has to present a case so that it is as favorable as possible for the Social Democrats, he emphasizes that the ideal is to be as objective as possible and to view the case from as many angles as possible—including those of the opposition.
Once you have done that and figured out what you believe yourself, it is completely natural to emphasize the arguments and the side of the case that best benefits your own positions and gives your own stance the most momentum. I do not consider that to be dishonest.
But it can be difficult to argue very hard if you have reached a position in your reasoning that is 55 percent for and 45 percent against. If, in that situation, you pretend that the argument is 100 percent for—well, I don't know if you can call it a lie, but you are certainly contributing to an unnecessary impression that the issue is without nuance. It would likely help increase our credibility if we occasionally acknowledged that there are good arguments on both sides, but that we believe that, overall, most signs point in one direction.
The challenge is just that you are sometimes put in a situation where it is your role to say something specific. The media can also make it look more unnuanced than it is. It is difficult to include nuances when you only have a few seconds or half a minute to speak.

Standing up for the party
There is plenty of room for nuance and dialogue in the Social Democratic parliamentary group, Daniel Toft Jakobsen finds, but once the group has agreed on a position, you must stand by it—even if you personally have a different opinion than the party, or simply wish that more nuances had been included.
I do not feel that one is pressured to be less nuanced in one's views. But it happens that not all members agree with the position the party reaches. That is unavoidable—if anyone claims otherwise, it is not true. In those situations, the expectation is that you are loyal and either say something you do not personally believe—you represent the party; you are a company man, if you will—or you refrain from commenting on the matter entirely.
Personally, I lean towards the latter. I find it difficult to throw myself wholeheartedly into a discussion where my conclusion differs from the party's. That doesn't mean I don't have great respect for those who do it for the sake of the party, or that I think I have higher moral ground than them. I try to be open about my considerations, and sometimes that means I might not be the right person to give an interview or participate in a debate. But I am still new, and perhaps that will change if I one day take on a more significant spokesperson role, where it is absolutely necessary to loyally communicate the group's positions. However, I could never defend just any viewpoint, and fortunately, I agree with my party on the vast majority of things.
A third option is to go against your own party, but you only do that, of course, if something very important and principled is at stake. The starting point is always to be loyal to the party – especially when voting in the parliamentary chamber – and I hope that the vote in January was not only the first but also the last time I voted against the party line. Debates should be held internally at group meetings, where you have the opportunity to speak your mind, and if the conclusion ends up being different from your own, you must, as a rule, be loyal.

A strong word
Lying is a strong word, Daniel Toft Jakobsen finds. Accusing a politician who loyally presents a position for their party, which they personally see a little differently or disagree with, is not a lie, but rather normal in all parties and part of the job description as a politician, he believes.
I do think, fundamentally, that there is too much of that kind of theater in Danish politics, but it is probably hard to avoid entirely, as most parties naturally do not want their politicians to express all sorts of conflicting views. Words like hypocrite and liar are, in any case, very strong words, and you really need to be sure of your case before directing such words at others. In politics, you can use the word lie if, for example, a minister states that they knew nothing about a case – but where the minister actually knew quite well what was going on. It is only at that level that you can speak of a lie – when you deliberately provide factually incorrect information. 

Photos: Per Bækgaard