top of page

Identity Politics and Government Policies: Analysing The Impact

In today's increasingly polarised world, the intersection of identity politics and government policies has become a subject of intense scrutiny and debate. As we navigate this complex landscape, it is imperative to draw upon the insights of writers, scholars, philosophers, and experts in various fields to gain a comprehensive understanding of the consequences of these dynamics. As an ardent researcher of ideas, I hope to share my observations on the repercussions of identity politics and government policies on society.

What is identity politics? It is the segmentation of society into different interest groups based on race, gender, or other inherent characteristics. It champions the idea that these group identities are paramount, often at the expense of the individual. This approach tends to emphasise divisions rather than shared human experiences, fostering a culture of grievance and victimhood. It overlooks the complexity of individual experiences and reduces people to the characteristics of the group to which they are perceived to belong. This viewpoint leads to policies that prioritise group identity over merit and individuality, leading to further discrimination and societal fragmentation.

When considering the role of identity politics in shaping government policies, it is crucial to start with the concept of justice as fairness. The common virtuous assertion is that a just society should be designed to benefit the least advantaged. However, this application of identity politics leads to policies that prioritise specific groups over others, exacerbating inequalities.

In Australia, for instance, affirmative action policies aimed at addressing historical injustices faced by Indigenous populations inadvertently create resentment among non-Indigenous communities. This division obstructs efforts to build the envisioned, more just society, as it is clear evidence of discrimination.

The alternative perspective on equality and rights adds depth to our analysis. When the importance of individual rights is focused on, it is obvious that identity politics clashes with these rights when it imposes group-based obligations. The tension between individual liberties and collective identity is a challenge governments grapple with worldwide. The story is as old as the written word; it is the story of David vs. Goliath, the witch vs. the MOB, the peasant vs. the religious inquisition, and the socialists murdering millions through democide.

The tragic loss of lives, a consequence of prioritising the demands of the mob over the rights of the individual, eerily echoes the millions that perished under socialist and democratic socialist regimes in the past century. Given the historical pattern of democide that these ideologies have caused, it is important to closely monitor those who support them. Despite their roots in altruistic visions of an idealistic future, these ideologies have consistently failed, proving fatal in every attempt. It is a stark reminder that noble intentions can lead to disastrous outcomes when individual liberties are sacrificed for collective goals.

Consider the case of speech restrictions in Australia's Northern Territory aimed at protecting the cultural sensitivities of certain Indigenous groups. While well-intentioned, these policies may infringe upon the freedom of expression of individuals who do not identify with these groups. Striking a balance between respecting cultural heritage and upholding individual rights is a challenging task.

The scholar Lord Hewart's concerns about the potential for government overreach serve as a cautionary tale. When identity politics dominates policymaking, there is a risk of creating an overly interventionist government that seeks to control every aspect of society. Such a trend erodes individual freedoms and stifles innovation.

In the Northern Territory, we see examples of well-intentioned policies that may have unintended consequences. The "Stronger Futures" initiative, designed to address social issues within Indigenous communities, faced criticism for its paternalistic approach. Critics argue that it perpetuated dependency on the government rather than empowering communities to take control of their own destinies.

Economists and business owners emphasise that the unintended consequences of government interventions are particularly relevant. When identity politics drives government decisions, it results in ill-conceived policies that harm the very groups they intend to help. For instance, minimum wage laws, often advocated for under the banner of social justice, lead to job losses, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities.

Identity-based policies that restrict economic activity or impose onerous regulations stifle entrepreneurship and hinder economic growth. In the Northern Territory, this manifests in reduced opportunities for individuals to improve their economic circumstances. The lack of meritocratic policies in public employment has led to massive blowouts in department budgets. This is taxpayer funds being arbitrarily wasted to meet identitarian requirements.

Viewed through the lens of psychology, the proliferation of identity politics poses a profound and perilous impact on both individuals and the societal fabric. This approach, which fragments society into competing groups based on inherent characteristics, not only undermines the concept of individual merit but also ignites divisive tensions. It's a dangerous path that detracts from the principles of personal responsibility and mutual cooperation, the cornerstones of a healthy and functioning society. Identity politics encourages people to define themselves primarily by their group identity, which limits personal growth and leads to a sense of victimhood.

When government policies encourage Indigenous Australians to identify primarily as victims or as vulnerable, it inadvertently reinforces a sense of powerlessness and dependency. This hinders the development of individual agency and resilience. Several Elders took the NT Government to court in 2021 over such claims and subsequently settled the case as a win. The word vulnerable had to be removed from health policy. Yet in the Liquor Act 2019 and the Alcohol Harm Reduction Act 2017, aboriginals and TIs are still considered vulnerable, clear evidence of systemic bigotry.

The late scholar Theodore Dalrymple's work on the culture of dependency is relevant in the context of identity politics and government policies. When government support is tied to group identity, it creates a culture where individuals perceive themselves as entitled to assistance rather than striving for self-reliance. In the Northern Territory, welfare policies that are overly generous and tied to Indigenous identity discourage self-sufficiency and create a cycle of dependency, ultimately hindering progress in affected communities.

Identity-based policies in law enforcement lead to unequal treatment. For instance, a focus on identity results in racial profiling, where the police unfairly target certain groups. This damages community trust and hinders effective policing efforts.

While identity politics is promoted as a tool for addressing historical injustices and promoting social cohesion, it creates unintended consequences, including division, dependency, and infringements on individual rights. The alternative is respecting individual freedoms, promoting economic opportunity, and addressing historical injustices in a way that empowers all members of society through acknowledgement, education, and understanding.

Holding descendants, or in the Australian context, immigrants, accountable for the misdeeds of those long gone, is not only a breach of due process but also a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Just as it is nonsensical to demand rent from someone who has passed away, so too is the notion of seeking reparation for historical wrongs through contemporary injustices. This approach not only disregards individual responsibility but also perpetuates a cycle of wrongdoing under the guise of justice. True justice demands the recognition that the sins of the past cannot – and should not – be the debts of the present. Two wrongs, under no circumstance, can lead to a right outcome. From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.

9 views0 comments


bottom of page