In these fraught times, with the 2024 Democratic National Convention unfolding against the backdrop of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, backed by the United States and its allies, politics can’t just be business as usual.

The conclusion of the 2024 DNC in Chicago on Thursday reminded us again of what is wrong with politics in the West. We have equated politics with democracy and democracy with the perpetual cycle of electoral politics and its expediency.

In the early 1990s, I had the privilege of engaging in an in-depth conversation with Bernard Crick about his seminal book, In Defence of Politics. Like Crick, I am now captivated by his perspective, reflecting Thomas Hobbes’s notion of “...the disorders of the present time.” Crick revels in the chaos of politics, challenging the neat labels of ideology, democracy, nationalism and technology. Instead, he embraces the unruly, unpredictable nature of political life. In Defence of Politics, published in 1962, has endured through five editions and remains in print. Crick took great pleasure in learning that Chapters One and Seven were illicitly copied and secretly distributed in the Soviet Union and Pinochet’s Chile. I recall vividly his eloquent defence of politics amidst the complexities of democracy.

Western leaders love to wave the banners of liberty and free government, but they’re often blindsided when those ideals don’t translate abroad. While democracy is usually equated with majority rule, some argue it’s really about liberty or individualism. Yet, behind the democratic façade, political parties often hide their oligarchic roots. Democracy doesn’t just sustain free societies; it can also reinforce unfree ones, laying the groundwork for totalitarianism. Nowhere is the friction between democracy and liberty more evident than in America, where the tyranny of public opinion stirs constant debate. Alexis de Tocqueville warned that American freedom might one day be undone by the very power of the majority.

Held amidst the moral turmoil of an ongoing genocide in Gaza, supported by the US and its allies, the DNC could not afford to be business as usual.

Democratic National Convention

We may experience a semblance of peace but it often comes with a war mentality, as Orwell depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four: exploiting resources and accepting unending oppression of others.

Anti-war protestors have dogged the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Kamala Harris. In the wake of President Biden’s moral and electoral blunders in backing Israel’s devastating campaign, the pressing question becomes whether a Harris administration will chart a different course. The actual gauge lies in what Harris chooses to say—or, perhaps more revealingly, not say—about the genocide in Gaza.

On Thursday night, Kamala Harris wrapped up the Democratic National Convention with a 38-minute speech, sharing her childhood story, outlining her presidential vision and formally accepting the party’s nomination. Her address was the 12th-shortest in modern history, starkly contrasting her opponent’s record for the three longest. She closed her speech with a rhetorical call to action: “It’s our turn to write the next chapter, to fight for the country we love and the ideals we cherish. Let’s get out there and fight for it.”

This event marked the official launch of the Kamala Harris and Tim Walz Democratic ticket for the November presidential polls. At the convention, party delegates vote on the party platform, ceremonially elect their presidential candidate and endorse her nominee for vice president. The convention began on August 19 at the United Centre in Chicago.

These national party jamborees attract big television ratings and define the prime-time of the nation. The Selling of the President in 1968 shattered the illusion of politics as pure idealism. Joe McGinniss’s deep dive into Nixon’s campaign exposed how Nixon’s team reshaped his staid image into a marketable persona. In American politics, image isn’t just influential—it’s essential for swaying votes and encouraging voter turnout. According to reports, early in the year, in July, the Republican Party Convention saw about 25 million television viewers, while the Democratic Party was steady with about 20 million on the third day of the convention.

Gaza - The elephant in the room at the DNC

The site of the DNC brims with irony. Chicago proudly hosts the largest Palestinian community in the United States, with Little Palestine at its vibrant core. Around 25,000 Palestinian Americans call it their home in this neighbourhood nestled in the West Rogers Park and Albany Park areas, brimmed with Palestinian culture.

On the opening day of the DNC, McCormick Place witnessed a historic moment: the first-ever DNC panel dedicated to Palestinian human rights. This significant event underscored the grim reality in Gaza that compelled the Democratic Party to engage with the Palestinian issue formally. Dr Tany Haj-Hasssan, a pediatric ICU specialist, delivered a chilling account of Gaza’s plight, where 17,000 children have become orphans amid the ongoing conflict. Her testimony was so moving that Layla Elabed, co-founder of the Uncommitted Movement, had to leave the room in distress. This poignant reminder of the human cost of American arms sales to Israel contrasted sharply with the party’s apparent reluctance to confront the consequences of its policies. Later, during Biden’s speech, protestors inside the United Centre unfurled a Stop Arming Israel banner, quickly obscured by We Love Joe signs. The party issued a tepid statement praising the convention’s broad coalition while sidestepping the significance of the protest.

In the wake of President Biden’s moral and electoral blunders in backing Israel’s devastating campaign, the pressing question becomes whether a Harris administration will chart a different course. The actual gauge lies in what Harris chooses to say—or, perhaps more revealingly, not say—about the genocide in Gaza.

James Zogby, a stalwart of the Democratic National Committee, reflected on the groundbreaking significance of the first-ever panel on Palestinian rights on the opening day of the DNC in Chicago: “For 50 years, I’ve fought to get Palestine on the agenda. Jesse Jackson changed that by championing our cause and ensuring it got its deserved attention in 1984 and 1988. Today, having an officially sanctioned panel on Palestinian rights is a landmark moment. It may not be the ultimate prize, but it marks significant progress from when we didn’t even have a seat at the table. This is not just optimism; it’s a testament to how far we’ve come. We’ve gone from not having a cup to filling it up, and this panel is a vital part of that journey, reflecting a shift from top-down decisions to grassroots activism shaping policy.”

However, the panel occurred at the convention’s secondary business site and received no television coverage.

The throngs of activists descending on Chicago scoffed at a token panel and empty political platitudes. The Democratic Party’s 92-page platform still overlooked calls to condition arms sales to Israel or implement the complete arms embargo demanded by Uncommitted delegates and over 200 coalition groups.

Their last attempt to have a speaker’s spot on the primary stage fizzled as the Democratic Party stalled all their efforts on flimsy grounds, such as vetting issues. Spurned by the DNC, the Uncommitted movement is Staging a Sit-In for Palestine. Delegate Abbas Alawieh announced that after about two months of asking, the Uncommitted movement would not be granted a speaker at the Democratic National Convention, meaning not a single Palestinian or Palestinian-American will have the chance to step onto the DNC stage.

However, the DNC gave an Israeli-American couple a chance to speak about their child held hostage for 320 days and counting.

Kamala and Gaza

There’s been a lot of confusion over Vice President Kamala Harris’ position on Gaza. She appears to be latching on to the same obfuscating tactics as her current boss, Biden. Harris’s record reveals a steadfast endorsement of Israel’s actions, including the supply of heavy weaponry. Since Harris accepted the nomination, the administration greenlit a $20 billion arms sale to Israel with no conditions. If that’s her version of tirelessly working to end the conflict, she’s missing the mark entirely. That was the allusion to Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), once viewed as a progressive beacon, who praised Harris on Tuesday for “working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire.” The comments sparked a wave of criticism across social media.

In the whirl of shifting media narratives and the spectre of Trump’s return, one might fancy Harris is subtly diverging from Biden on Gaza. Yet, her empathetic rhetoric and ongoing arms deals hint more at a well-oiled spin machine than genuine progress. The excuse that she can’t challenge Biden because she’s running for office rings hollow—loyalty should not outweigh the urgency of stopping genocide. Meanwhile, activists and major unions have escalated their demands from a token ceasefire to a firm call for ending US military aid to Israel.

Birthed in Michigan, the Uncommitted National Movement, the growing anti-war movement sought a fresh tactic to capture the president’s attention. They devised a strategy: urging Democratic voters to cast their ballots for ‘uncommitted’—essentially a vote for no one—as a protest against the Gaza conflict and a call for a ceasefire. The movement took a leaf from Michigan’s 2008 approach, where Barack Obama’s name was absent from the ballot due to primary rule violations, leading his supporters to vote ‘uncommitted’ to oppose Hillary Clinton.

The movement unsettled Biden and his Democratic colleagues, prompting a shift in White House rhetoric from a ‘humanitarian pause’ to a temporary ceasefire. Biden has suggested constructing a port for aid to Gaza. More Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, are now calling for Netanyahu’s removal. Activists argue that these verbal shifts don’t translate into meaningful policy changes. Their demands are precise: they seek a lasting ceasefire in Gaza and an end to US support for the war.

Kamala’s attempts to distance herself from this stance only highlight the depth of her enduring support for Israel. Her true colours emerged later that evening when she scorned pro-Palestine protesters who interrupted her speech. Harris’s allegiance to Israel, displayed in her July 25 meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, was unwavering. She recounted her long history of support for Israel, from her youth to her current role, while offering only perfunctory remarks about Palestinian suffering. Before her Detroit rally last week, Kamala Harris extended a token gesture to the Uncommitted National Movement, offering to discuss an arms embargo against Israel. Yet, the move felt more like a strategic ploy than a genuine concession.

New spin on genocide

The reception of ceasefire calls at the convention merely masks the administration’s ongoing complicity. Even when President Biden acknowledged the protests, he distorted the core principles of the Gaza solidarity movement.

The White House has rebranded ‘ceasefire,’ turning it from an apparent demand for US intervention to stop Israel’s bombing in Gaza into something unrecognisable. What once meant using American influence to end the violence now serves a different narrative altogether. The White House has twisted ‘ceasefire’ to mean merely a temporary pause, supporting a brief lull for aid before resuming endless backing for Israel’s war on Gaza under the guise of eliminating Hamas. The White House further spun the version into “a pause to bring the hostage back.” There is no mention of Palestine and the ceasefire has to serve Israeli interests. No wonder such shifting positions let them push hollow ceasefire talks while feigning neutrality.

A glimpse into Harris’s vision for America’s foreign policy may come through her national security adviser, Philip Gordon, and deputy, Rebecca Lissner. These seasoned Washington veterans have each authored books The Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East and An Open World: How America Can Win the Contest for Twenty-First-Century Order, respectively, suggesting a shift from America’s lone, aggressive stance on the global stage.

In defence of politics

In the most morally compelling times, all we get is the DNC pretending to stay a tone-deaf, sealed-off bubble, blissfully unaware and unbothered. At a time when ambition in politics should have been embraced, the DNC preferred to play the myopic game of democracy. For the expedient politician of the present day, Bernard Crick has a piece of advice: “Democracy is one element in politics; if it seeks to be everything, it destroys politics, ‘turning harmony into mere unison,‘ reducing a theme to a single beat.” For Crick, politics is messy and complex. His book defends it against those who would identify it with (and reduce it to) ideology, democracy, nationalism or technology. Politics does need defending on many occasions against the exclusive claims of many concepts of democracy, which can lead to the despotism of people’s democracies. But it requires, most of all, the most unpopular of defences: a historical analysis against the vagueness of popular rhetoric,” he adds.

The writer is a critic, essayist and writer who splits his time between Toronto, London and Geneva