What do you think?
Rate this book
Why We Hate Politics
Politics was once a term with an array of broadly positive connotations, associated with public scrutiny, deliberation and accountability. Yet today it is an increasingly dirty word, typically synonymous with duplicity, corruption, inefficiency and undue interference in matters both public and private. How has this come to pass? Why do we hate politics and politicians so much? How pervasive is the contemporary condition of political disaffection? And what is politics anyway?
In this lively and original work, Colin Hay provides a series of innovative and provocative answers to these questions. He begins by tracing the origins and development of the current climate of political disenchantment across a broad range of established democracies. Far from revealing a rising tide of apathy, however, he shows that a significant proportion of those who have withdrawn from formal politics are engaged in other modes of political activity.
He goes on to develop and defend a broad and inclusive conception of politics and the political that is far less formal, less state-centric and less narrowly governmental than in most conventional accounts. By demonstrating how our expectations of politics and the political realities we witness are shaped decisively by the assumptions about human nature that we project onto political actors, Hay provides a powerful and highly distinctive account of contemporary political disenchantment. Why We Hate Politics will be essential reading for all those troubled by the contemporary political condition of the established democracies.
In this lively and original work, Colin Hay provides a series of innovative and provocative answers to these questions. He begins by tracing the origins and development of the current climate of political disenchantment across a broad range of established democracies. Far from revealing a rising tide of apathy, however, he shows that a significant proportion of those who have withdrawn from formal politics are engaged in other modes of political activity.
He goes on to develop and defend a broad and inclusive conception of politics and the political that is far less formal, less state-centric and less narrowly governmental than in most conventional accounts. By demonstrating how our expectations of politics and the political realities we witness are shaped decisively by the assumptions about human nature that we project onto political actors, Hay provides a powerful and highly distinctive account of contemporary political disenchantment. Why We Hate Politics will be essential reading for all those troubled by the contemporary political condition of the established democracies.
200 pages, Hardcover
First published March 26, 2007
5 people are currently reading
181 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 15, 2017
A more nuanced version of this sharp title would be: “why do so many people nowadays project negative attributes onto political actors (who they mainly see as self-serving and self-interested crooks, who have no feeling or motivation to act in the collective good) and therefore have very bleak expectations about what “politics” can mean or do to further economic and societal problems?” Opinion polls seem to suggest that we all like the ideal of democracy, but that we no longer have trust in politics as such, in the way democracy has been implemented in the advanced liberal democracies. Voter turnout has been ever-declining (a trend accelerated since the 90s), party membership is at an all-time low, levels of political trust are extremely meagre, and various forms of informal participation (such as consumer politics, protests, demonstrations) are on the rise. It seems therefore that “the political”, or the drive to engage in political debates has been transformed (and is therefore not absent), into informal ways of engagement. Why so little formal participation, and so much cynicism about what politicians – and by extension politics – can do?
To answer this question, most literature has focused on the “demand” side, meaning that “citizens get the politics they deserve”. If they are uninterested, show a lack of civic duty, are becoming more realistic about what politics can do, they engage less, and the blame is therefore shifted away from politicians or the polity itself. Colin Hay argues, however, that we have focused too much on these kind of variables (even though they obviously play a role in explaining the outcome, often intertwined with his own input). His argument is that we should redirect our focus on several “supply” side variables, related to the “offer of political goods”. If there are arguments that make sense here, the bottom line changes towards “the levels of political participation the politicians deserve”.
Luckily for those uninterested and cynical citizens, his argument does make sense, shifting the blame away from us “ignorant non-voters”. His argument relies on two main claims, a “domestic” and a “global” one, that together have had a genuine depoliticizing influence. This means that the whole sphere of politics, the “capacity for agency and deliberation in situations of genuine collective or social choice” has been eroding over time. There is, simply, less to deliberate and debate about. This has reinforced a lack of legitimacy and confidence in politicians and politics, which has in turn – not entirely irrationally – disengaged voters and citizens.
The “domestic source” of this trend deals with the negative assumptions we project onto political actors, and the internalization of these assumption by political elites onto themselves. Politicians have been actively promoting the depoliticization of several issues (or entire public policy domains) to e.g. independent bodies or the market, because they state these topics would be better off without politicians’ involvement. The theoretical groundwork for such claims lie in the public choice literature, which has prominently focused on ‘state failure’. These economistic assumptions, however, have come to dominate our thoughts about electoral competition and politicians’ motivations. The solution? Keep as many things away from them, leave it to the market, leave it to independent agencies, add some sense of realism about the very little things politics can do. This tendency has been reinforced by normalizing and constitutionalizing these essentially neoliberal ideas (which has a strong affinity to public choice theory), effectively taking public political scrutiny, contestation and debate off the table.
A second, “global” source of depoliticization refers to the increasing discourse of talking about the constraints and the imperatives that we need to adapt to “because of globalization”. Hay firstly shows that what we witness nowadays is first of all not globalization, but regionalization (increased intra-regional trading and investment) and ‘triadization’ (increased networks and flows between EU, North America and Pacific Asia). Nonetheless, it does not matter if ‘globalization’ as such is happening or not; what is important is that many people believe it is. The idea of globalization is nested extremely strong in our and politicians’ minds. If they think and say they are no longer capable of dealing with several problems ‘because, you know, globalization’, people will come to expect less of them in return.
In sum, politicians have come to internalize the most pessimistic public choice assumptions about the character of politicians and politics, and internalized the most pessimistic assumptions about their capability to act. Both have led to an increasing depoliticization of politics (we should not take this into our hands, we can no longer influence this or that), taking issues and entire public policy domains off the debating table. As Dan Leighton summarizes: “If more and more areas of social life are either issues of individual consumer choice, or determined by uncontrollable market forces, what is the point in politics?”.
Hay ends with a hopeful message, to those who want to see it. He does not simply state that we should start trusting politicians and public servants more. Indeed, as he argues, they get as much trust as we are willing to give them. More importantly, we should start to realize the consequences of projecting these negative assumptions onto politicians and politics in general, and start scrutinizing if these claims are actually true. This implies revising the narrowly instrumental conception of human nature that we are projecting onto political actors, but also putting question marks next to things that are stated to be ‘irreversible’ or ‘having no alternative’, amongst which the process of globalization.
The link with contemporary disengagement is easily made. The disenchantment with American (and EU) politics is not primarily one of uninterested or stupid voters pulling away from (or trying to disrupt) the debate. Their griefs towards politicians and politics are for a large part due to tendencies such as a reliance on claims that we have to abide by this or that economic doctrine (we simply have no alternative), or that we should no longer talk about a certain issue or a policy domain (TTIP, a free trade agreement between the US and EU currently under negotiation and which has produced massive outrage in the EU, has been labelled by politicians as a “no brainer” – it’s free trade, why all the fuss?!), or that we should leave inherently political decisions (such as monetary or trade policy) to bodies that are as far away from public scrutiny and debate as possible. Many people are no longer heard, policies have – through various tactics and strategies – been depoliticized over the years, which makes us an electorate that is no longer voting on issues or programs, but on which political head we trust most. We should stop implying that there is no legitimacy in politics, that they lack the capacity to change things. We should start taking seriously that there are choices, there are many. We will have (hard) conflicts about them, but in essence that is what democracy looks like.
To answer this question, most literature has focused on the “demand” side, meaning that “citizens get the politics they deserve”. If they are uninterested, show a lack of civic duty, are becoming more realistic about what politics can do, they engage less, and the blame is therefore shifted away from politicians or the polity itself. Colin Hay argues, however, that we have focused too much on these kind of variables (even though they obviously play a role in explaining the outcome, often intertwined with his own input). His argument is that we should redirect our focus on several “supply” side variables, related to the “offer of political goods”. If there are arguments that make sense here, the bottom line changes towards “the levels of political participation the politicians deserve”.
Luckily for those uninterested and cynical citizens, his argument does make sense, shifting the blame away from us “ignorant non-voters”. His argument relies on two main claims, a “domestic” and a “global” one, that together have had a genuine depoliticizing influence. This means that the whole sphere of politics, the “capacity for agency and deliberation in situations of genuine collective or social choice” has been eroding over time. There is, simply, less to deliberate and debate about. This has reinforced a lack of legitimacy and confidence in politicians and politics, which has in turn – not entirely irrationally – disengaged voters and citizens.
The “domestic source” of this trend deals with the negative assumptions we project onto political actors, and the internalization of these assumption by political elites onto themselves. Politicians have been actively promoting the depoliticization of several issues (or entire public policy domains) to e.g. independent bodies or the market, because they state these topics would be better off without politicians’ involvement. The theoretical groundwork for such claims lie in the public choice literature, which has prominently focused on ‘state failure’. These economistic assumptions, however, have come to dominate our thoughts about electoral competition and politicians’ motivations. The solution? Keep as many things away from them, leave it to the market, leave it to independent agencies, add some sense of realism about the very little things politics can do. This tendency has been reinforced by normalizing and constitutionalizing these essentially neoliberal ideas (which has a strong affinity to public choice theory), effectively taking public political scrutiny, contestation and debate off the table.
A second, “global” source of depoliticization refers to the increasing discourse of talking about the constraints and the imperatives that we need to adapt to “because of globalization”. Hay firstly shows that what we witness nowadays is first of all not globalization, but regionalization (increased intra-regional trading and investment) and ‘triadization’ (increased networks and flows between EU, North America and Pacific Asia). Nonetheless, it does not matter if ‘globalization’ as such is happening or not; what is important is that many people believe it is. The idea of globalization is nested extremely strong in our and politicians’ minds. If they think and say they are no longer capable of dealing with several problems ‘because, you know, globalization’, people will come to expect less of them in return.
In sum, politicians have come to internalize the most pessimistic public choice assumptions about the character of politicians and politics, and internalized the most pessimistic assumptions about their capability to act. Both have led to an increasing depoliticization of politics (we should not take this into our hands, we can no longer influence this or that), taking issues and entire public policy domains off the debating table. As Dan Leighton summarizes: “If more and more areas of social life are either issues of individual consumer choice, or determined by uncontrollable market forces, what is the point in politics?”.
Hay ends with a hopeful message, to those who want to see it. He does not simply state that we should start trusting politicians and public servants more. Indeed, as he argues, they get as much trust as we are willing to give them. More importantly, we should start to realize the consequences of projecting these negative assumptions onto politicians and politics in general, and start scrutinizing if these claims are actually true. This implies revising the narrowly instrumental conception of human nature that we are projecting onto political actors, but also putting question marks next to things that are stated to be ‘irreversible’ or ‘having no alternative’, amongst which the process of globalization.
The link with contemporary disengagement is easily made. The disenchantment with American (and EU) politics is not primarily one of uninterested or stupid voters pulling away from (or trying to disrupt) the debate. Their griefs towards politicians and politics are for a large part due to tendencies such as a reliance on claims that we have to abide by this or that economic doctrine (we simply have no alternative), or that we should no longer talk about a certain issue or a policy domain (TTIP, a free trade agreement between the US and EU currently under negotiation and which has produced massive outrage in the EU, has been labelled by politicians as a “no brainer” – it’s free trade, why all the fuss?!), or that we should leave inherently political decisions (such as monetary or trade policy) to bodies that are as far away from public scrutiny and debate as possible. Many people are no longer heard, policies have – through various tactics and strategies – been depoliticized over the years, which makes us an electorate that is no longer voting on issues or programs, but on which political head we trust most. We should stop implying that there is no legitimacy in politics, that they lack the capacity to change things. We should start taking seriously that there are choices, there are many. We will have (hard) conflicts about them, but in essence that is what democracy looks like.
March 17, 2021
Lite rambly och tog upp flera bra punkter om varför folk känner sig distanserade från politik
June 27, 2009
Recently at one of my toastmasters meetings, a toastmaster got up and shamelessly, if not proudly, announced his complete ignorance of politics. 'I don't care about politics because all politicians do is lie' is basically the gist of his philosophy, and many in the room nodded in agreement.
Perhaps I am just a naive, idealistic student, but I've never really understood where this cynicism and sometimes outright hostility towards politics comes from. And it concerns me.
Democracy is something people throughout history, around the world have literally died to achieve, yet many people in the most democratic societies are flippantly throwing their right to vote away. Why?
So when my lecturer recommended 'Why we hate politics' I jumped at the opportunity.Finally would there be some answers to my peers disaffection with the political process? and just maybe an offered solution?
Unfortunately 'Why we hate politics' was written by an academic, and so is presented as the most dense, dry way possible. And the sad thing is that 'Why we hate politics' is actually better than your average academic offering. This is terribly unfortunate given the importance of the question Hay poses, and the need for wider discussion about the role of politics in our society. Why is it that the most knowledgeable people in our culture show no interest in engaging with the rest of us? isn't that their purpose?
I think I need to read a Stephen King novel to recover.
Perhaps I am just a naive, idealistic student, but I've never really understood where this cynicism and sometimes outright hostility towards politics comes from. And it concerns me.
Democracy is something people throughout history, around the world have literally died to achieve, yet many people in the most democratic societies are flippantly throwing their right to vote away. Why?
So when my lecturer recommended 'Why we hate politics' I jumped at the opportunity.Finally would there be some answers to my peers disaffection with the political process? and just maybe an offered solution?
Unfortunately 'Why we hate politics' was written by an academic, and so is presented as the most dense, dry way possible. And the sad thing is that 'Why we hate politics' is actually better than your average academic offering. This is terribly unfortunate given the importance of the question Hay poses, and the need for wider discussion about the role of politics in our society. Why is it that the most knowledgeable people in our culture show no interest in engaging with the rest of us? isn't that their purpose?
I think I need to read a Stephen King novel to recover.
March 23, 2023
Read during my 1st year of undergrad politics - very informative and gives a good general basis
November 29, 2024
الترجمة سيئة
وأطروحة الكتاب جيدة ولكن لا تستحق كل هذه الضجة
وأطروحة الكتاب جيدة ولكن لا تستحق كل هذه الضجة
August 5, 2025
If we assume that other cannot be trusted, or we assume that they must first demonstrate themselves trustworthy before we will reciprocate, then we foreclose the very possibility of deliberation, co-operation and the provision of collective goods. In short, we disavow politics.
Democracy is an ethereal principle beyond reproach, politics a sordid and grubby practice beyond redemption.
Democracy is an ethereal principle beyond reproach, politics a sordid and grubby practice beyond redemption.
April 11, 2024
تنخفض نسبة مشاركة الناخبين في النظم الديمقراطية بما يؤثّر سلباً في شرعية النظام الديمقراطي، فكانت هذه البيانات الإحصائية هي مدخل المؤلف وأستاذ العلوم السياسية للبحث عن السّبب خلق هذه النتيجة، والتفكير في الإجراءات التي من المحتمل أن تؤدي إلى رفع نسب المشاركة مجدداً لضمان شرعية الديمقراطية
January 18, 2025
لماذا نكره السياسة؟ | كولين هاي
في هذا الكتاب يُناقش كولين عدة لعدم ثقة الناس في السياسة، وشعورهم العميق بالإحباط وقلّة إيمان بعض المجتمعات بأهمية دور السياسة في تسيس الوطن، خاصة في الجيل الجديد من المجتمعات.
منتقلاً بخمسة فصول شارحًا بإسهاب عميق ولكنه يتسم بالسهولة والسلاسة ليقرأه القارئ غير العليم بالسياسة والعليم بها، ليعرف الأفكار المطروحة والمقصودة من كولين. طارحًا الأسباب والخطوات اللازمة لحل معضلة عدم الثقة في الساسة والسياسة، ومستعرضًا طرقًا عدة لإعادة الثقة بين المجتمع الإنساني والمجتمع السياسي.
في مقدمة الفصل الخامس المعنون بلماذا نكره السياسة يقول كولين: لقد سعيت في هذا الكتاب إلى تقديم وصف مميّز لأصول الحالة المعاصرة لخيبة الأمل السّياسي، وقمت بذلك من خلال تطوير منظور جديد لمفاهيم السّياسة والتسييس وعدم التسييس في -وربما من أجل- عصر السخط السّياسي وخيبة الأمل من كل ما هو مرتبط بالسّياسة. والمقاربة، التي كانت ثمرة هذا التحليل السّياسي والتساؤل عن سبب كرهنا للسياسة، تُعدّ غير تقليدية على الإطلاق، لكنّني لم أسعَ للتركيز على ما يجب أن تكون عليه السّياسة، على الرغم من أنّه كان لدي قدر لا بأس به لأقوله عما قد تكون عليه.". مع توضيح كامل منه لتلخيص وبلّورة أفكاره وهذا ما يميّز الكتاب بأن كولين يتعاطى مع أفكاره وكأنه يتحدث لها مع القارئ.
في هذا الكتاب يُناقش كولين عدة لعدم ثقة الناس في السياسة، وشعورهم العميق بالإحباط وقلّة إيمان بعض المجتمعات بأهمية دور السياسة في تسيس الوطن، خاصة في الجيل الجديد من المجتمعات.
منتقلاً بخمسة فصول شارحًا بإسهاب عميق ولكنه يتسم بالسهولة والسلاسة ليقرأه القارئ غير العليم بالسياسة والعليم بها، ليعرف الأفكار المطروحة والمقصودة من كولين. طارحًا الأسباب والخطوات اللازمة لحل معضلة عدم الثقة في الساسة والسياسة، ومستعرضًا طرقًا عدة لإعادة الثقة بين المجتمع الإنساني والمجتمع السياسي.
في مقدمة الفصل الخامس المعنون بلماذا نكره السياسة يقول كولين: لقد سعيت في هذا الكتاب إلى تقديم وصف مميّز لأصول الحالة المعاصرة لخيبة الأمل السّياسي، وقمت بذلك من خلال تطوير منظور جديد لمفاهيم السّياسة والتسييس وعدم التسييس في -وربما من أجل- عصر السخط السّياسي وخيبة الأمل من كل ما هو مرتبط بالسّياسة. والمقاربة، التي كانت ثمرة هذا التحليل السّياسي والتساؤل عن سبب كرهنا للسياسة، تُعدّ غير تقليدية على الإطلاق، لكنّني لم أسعَ للتركيز على ما يجب أن تكون عليه السّياسة، على الرغم من أنّه كان لدي قدر لا بأس به لأقوله عما قد تكون عليه.". مع توضيح كامل منه لتلخيص وبلّورة أفكاره وهذا ما يميّز الكتاب بأن كولين يتعاطى مع أفكاره وكأنه يتحدث لها مع القارئ.
March 24, 2010
I read this one for uni. I think it is quite good. It seeks to explain some of the reasons for political disaffection in different societies around the world today.
Read
February 25, 2018A good counterfactual to years of rational-choice theory based political science classes. This book explores the decline in formal political participation by looking at the receding ability for politics to produce meaningful outcomes for citizens in an age of liberalised trade and internalised rational-theoretic assumptions.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews