November 19, 2025 06:20 AM IST First published on: Nov 19, 2025 at 06:20 AM ISTRecently, Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won the mayoral election in the global financial capital. Apart from right-wing hysteria over sharia law in New York City (NYC), there was also concern in Democratic circles over Mamdani’s popularity: He calls himself a socialist, has promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes should he come to NYC, and refused to visit Israel — all big no-nos in America. To top it all, he played “Dhoom machale” before his victory speech. So how could he win?Ever since US President Donald Trump’s rise in 2015, there has been growing concern over polarisation and the loss of civility and consensus/bipartisanship in politics. However, even as the media ridiculed Trump, large sections of society found his politics authentic compared to his consultant-trained opponents. On the other side was Bernie Sanders who emphasised the working class as opposed to the conventional focus on the middle class. Sanders’s campaign was also termed polarising and threatening to the unity of the Democratic party, as opposed to the more “realistic” politics of Hillary Clinton. The rise of such politicians prompted renewed calls of “can’t we all just go back to the good old days, play nice, and be friends?”I think not.AdvertisementThe rise of political polarisation is, in a historical sense, both necessary and desirable. Because with polarisation comes a clearer articulation of politics, instead of a false consensus papering over real contradictions. For some time, this consensus was stable, and the contradictions manageable. In the US, it meant an agreement over capitalism and imperialism (the disagreement was over degree, not substance). So, while both Republicans and Democrats debated foreign intervention, they did not question America’s right to intervene. And if George W Bush allowed the banks to run amok with dubious instruments,Barack Obama bailed them out when they failed. Thus, a photo where Michelle Obama is seen comforting George Bush following the death of his father is as much a symbol of unity and bipartisanship, as it is of a dreadful consensus that oversaw poverty at home and death and destruction abroad. To misquote Antonio Gramsci, the historical unity of the ruling classes was realised in the photograph.The fraying of this consensus, or deepening polarisation, allows us to see clearly what is at stake in politics. The point, then, is not to revive a moribund consensus, but construct a new one. And the creation of a new historic bloc, or a new societal consensus is always a long process. It is also, in its initial phase, necessarily “not universal”, especially when it concerns vertical social stratifications (caste/class), as opposed to horizontal ones (religion, ethnicity). For instance, while it is feasible and desirable to articulate horizontal universalism, such as Hindu-Muslim unity, a vertical universalism is inherently meaningless. A politics for the working class and Bahujans will be at odds with upper caste/class privileges. Speaking of a non-polarised, “universal politics for all” in such cases is inherently meaningless. Of course, there are long periods when such a politics can sustain its contradictions. A “temporary” vertical consensus is achieved through cultural hegemony and redistributive measures and/or the creation of horizontal polarisation.AdvertisementMoving away from a false consensus also leads to an aesthetic reconfiguration of politics, which leads to greater authenticity. During such times, politicians no longer need to be universally liked — it means, in other words, the death of the mythical everyman. What you have instead is a return to a more organic aesthetic. This authenticity could be parochial (appealing to a certain group), but it could also appeal to a wider social coalition, much like Mamdani’s campaign. At its heart lies emotional resonance. Thus, during times of polarisation, the hold of a centrist/instrumentalist rationality will be weaker, and voters might go by their “gut feeling”. Any politics devoid of an emotional register will necessarily flounder.most readThis has lessons for India. While opposition parties may have genuine concerns regarding financial muscle and institutional malpractice, they also need to introspect. They need a distinct and emotionally resonant worldview that creates a new historic bloc. In the process, they may not please everybody, but that is infinitely better than pleasing nobody.The writer is an assistant professor of International Relations, Ashoka University. Views are personal