Stop maligning U-turns

U-turns are assumed to be a sign of weakness, an ‘embarrassing climb-down’, and ‘a humiliating defeat’. But there is a strong case to be made that U-turns in politics can be good.

The view that political U-turns are not necessarily contradictions but rather a necessary, often positive, feature of responsive governance is a significant, if debated, perspective in political analysis.

While traditionally viewed as a sign of weakness or a humiliating reversal, arguments exist that frame U-turns as a form of political humility or responsive democracy.

Politics happens in a fast-moving, complex world, and U-turns can reflect a willingness to adjust to new evidence or changing circumstances, or to incorporate expert advice or public feedback. In a democracy, this is a core strength. Instead of berating their weakness, one could say that politicians who change course after public protests, consultations, or elections are respecting democratic engagement.

A U-turn often reflects the rare but valuable quality of political humility. It shows leaders are willing to admit they were wrong or were unaware of the full picture. It can signify that leaders are responsive to feedback, expert advice, or public protests, prioritising public interest over personal pride or stubborn adherence to an initial plan.

Trust can actually increase when a leader shows he or she is willing to change course. It shows politicians listen to people and can actually see harm in policies they thought were good at the time but turn out not to be. What would perhaps prevent the whole scenario from happening in the first instance is better media scrutiny of party policies.

This has nothing to do with whether a policy is good or bad, and everything to do with political survival. People trying to spin it as “they are doing what the people want” are blind or biased.

Reversing a policy in light of new data or unforeseen circumstances is often a necessary adjustment rather than a contradiction of core principles. Regrettably, voters tend to penalise political parties when they backtrack on their positions, irrespective of the underlying motivation, even when external circumstances necessitate a change.

Of necessity, U-turns must be distinguished from political inconsistency.

The credibility of elite promises is essential for a well-functioning representative democracy. Furthermore, temporal stability and consistency are important sources of credibility. Voters tend to disregard candidates who express different views at different points in time, what I would call the waffling phenomenon. Voters, indeed, punish political parties or candidates who undertake significant positional reversals.

Voters dislike positional inconsistency for two interrelated reasons. First, parties that change positions too frequently or explicitly might raise voters’ uncertainty. Since voters are generally risk-averse and allergic to uncertainty, they will shun parties that change positions. Second, radical changes can damage the party’s public image by portraying it as overly opportunistic, incompetent or untrustworthy.

Policy U-turns should be evaluated based on voters’ understanding of what motivated them in the first place. From a normative perspective, although voters are unlikely to tolerate policy U-turns, they should be less critical when such changes are made for the betterment of things.

I remember when I first heard the phrase U-turn and the associated horror with which it was proclaimed in the media. Coming from a society where democracy should ostensibly prevail, I couldn’t quite work out why this was a bad thing.

Prime Minister Robert Abela has been attributed with some sudden and unexpected U-turns. They were met with a response in the media and by the Opposition, suggesting that this was now a government characterised by about-turns.

In the atmosphere of a witch hunt, perfectly reasonable policy tweaks or refinements are too often characterised as U-turns. At times, the accusations are just absurd.

Even Opposition politicians are no longer immune.

Remember PN leader Alex Borg’s initial statement that he will not refuse to rule out the possibility of high-rise development in Gozo during a party meeting, only to be followed by a counter-statement a few days later that he absolutely does not want any high-rises in Gozo?

A “humiliating climb-down”, it was called. A “stunning”, “extraordinary”, and “dishonest” manoeuvre that added to his original crime, that of lack of conviction. Instead of it being framed as an effort to revise a proposal that found no good reception, his attempt to appease was worse than the original crime.

The defining characteristic of strong politicians is that they never, ever change their minds. There is now a roll call of dishonour for politicians who go back on promises or policies. Considering that the whole process of representative democracy rests on making promises when not in government to attract votes, it is inevitable that many things are then worked out in government.

What kind of politics does this create?

The politics of ideological entrenchment, no matter what the impact is. The politics of sticking with your mistakes because the political infrastructure is not set up for adjustment. This enables the politics of populism and jingoism. Facts are enemies. Steadfastness in the face of all evidence is sacred.

We should allow politicians, and ourselves, much more leeway to change their, and our, minds if provided with counter evidence. The media could also do with a larger dose of humility and magnanimity towards those who show such mental flexibility. Think of all the damaging policies that have been pursued doggedly to save political face.