By Lauri Beekmann
Executive director, NordAN

October 26, 2023

​

The previous article set the stage by discussing the complicated relationship between party ideologies and alcohol policies. As we continue with this topic, we are met with an evolving paradox – parties, in their quest for votes, occasionally sidestep their traditional ideological foundations. Some even argue, that in today's political climate, some political parties appear devoid of any firm ideology, seemingly driven only by the pursuit of power and votes. Even when a political party takes an opportunistic approach, the policies they champion still stem from an ideological viewpoint to some degree. How, then, as advocates of evidence-based alcohol policies, do we navigate this nuanced political terrain?

​

The current landscape of political parties and their ideologies

In contemporary politics, parties have grown more dynamic and, at times, unpredictable. Observing the current political scene, it's common to find parties adapting or turning from their traditional roots. While some view this as pragmatism, others label it opportunism. Whatever the lens, it's an undeniable reality of modern-day politics.

 

But in this changing landscape, another trend can't be ignored. In various countries, even if they represent a minority voice, populist far-right parties have managed to amplify their agendas. Their vocal standpoints, combined with a media that often boosts these views for various reasons, push other parties into a reactive mode. As a result, regardless of their traditional ideologies, mainstream parties find themselves pushed to respond, often diving into issues they might have otherwise sidestepped. This phenomenon means societies frequently find themselves absorbed in conversations led by this vocal minority.

​

For alcohol policy advocates, understanding this landscape is critical. Recognising these dynamics allows us to craft messaging that resonates with the political parties and the broader public. It ensures that our advocacy efforts can address the realities on the ground and help us predict shifts in the conversation, and adapt our strategies accordingly. 

​

When differing ideologies lead to similar policies

Diving deep into policy matters, we can find interesting intersections. The easiest example is probably the matter of alcohol taxation. Parties with opposing ideologies might find common ground in raising alcohol taxes, though for very different reasons.

 

The primary drive for right-wing or economically conservative parties could be increasing state revenue or covering alcohol-related external costs. At the same time, left-wing parties might approach this from a public health perspective, intending to reduce alcohol consumption and its related harms. Both sides have different motivators, but the end policy – an increase in alcohol tax – can be the same.

 

For advocates, the initial reaction might be that the underlying reasoning doesn't matter. There's an old saying that the colour of the cat doesn't matter as long as it catches mice. If the policy outcome is what the advocate desires, should the ideological journey to that outcome concern us?

 

Well, the motivations and rationales behind policies matter because they can affect the longevity and stability of those policies, especially when social situations change. Economic ups and downs can quickly change policies that are all about money. When the economy is really good or really bad, these policies might shift. On the other hand, policies focused on keeping people healthy usually stay the same during these times. But they might run into trouble if people start changing their minds about what’s important for health. 

​

A fitting illustration is the 2019 alcohol tax reduction in Estonia and Latvia, known as the Baltic Tax War. Estonia was concerned about losing tax revenues to Latvia, while Latvia did not want to forfeit the additional income generated from Estonian consumers. In this scenario, political parties mainly neglected to address how these changes could affect public health. Additionally, the cross-border trade had shifted public opinion on advancing alcohol policies.

 

Understanding the current social context in which policies are formulated can give advocates a strategic advantage. Being aware of the different rationales allows advocates to foresee potential shifts in policy direction and adapt their strategies. After all, influencing policymakers is not just about achieving a desired policy but ensuring its sustainability and effectiveness in changing societal landscapes.

​

Navigating ideological deviations and policy influences

As we explore the landscape of political parties and their sometimes seemingly erratic behaviour, it is important to realise that the reasons behind these deviations can be complex. However, it's also crucial to understand that regardless of these deviations, the policies that emerge always have an ideological—and often very practical—background. 

 

When a political party deviates from its traditional position, it's not merely improvising or acting on a whim. There's usually a calculated rationale behind every policy, rooted in a specific ideology, even if it doesn't align with the party's broader or historical worldview. Even more, the voter base demanding these changes also operates under certain ideological principles.

 

I believe you can agree that these ideological shifts within society, particularly when they lead to the rise of far-right or far-left movements, are rarely driven by public health or alcohol policy concerns. Instead, they often respond to broader societal issues, questions, and problems that take centre stage in public discussion. For example, a societal shift towards a far-right mentality is likely influenced by factors such as immigration, national identity, or economic injustice, rather than alcohol policy.

​

However, alcohol policy liberalisation—or the push for stricter controls—can indeed be part of the package that comes with such ideological changes. One of the key principles often focussed in these cases is the concept of freedom. This can be expressed as freedom of choice for individuals, advocating for less state intervention in personal lives, or market freedom, promoting an economic environment where businesses, including those in the alcohol industry, operate with minimal regulations.

 

Seeing these connections between societal shifts, ideological backgrounds, and the resulting policy directions is important for us aiming to navigate these complex waters. Recognising that alcohol policy is often part of a larger ideological package allows for a more nuanced approach, enabling advocates to address the broader context and adjust their strategies accordingly.

​

Centering our advocacy on political dynamics

In the maze of modern politics, where ideologies are in constant instability and political partnerships can be unpredictable, alcohol policy advocates must maintain a laser-sharp focus on political parties and policymakers. They are at the heart of our advocacy efforts, and our effectiveness depends on our ability to understand and address the principles, worldviews, and ideologies that motivate them.

​

Navigating this landscape requires a nuanced appreciation of how societal changes can swing political parties in one direction or another. Far from being static bodies, political parties evolve and adapt in response to the changes in public opinion and societal norms. Recognising this dynamism is critical to ensuring that our advocacy remains relevant.

 

By understanding the political world, we can better shape our messages to connect with the many different beliefs in the world of policy-making. This strategic adaptability enables us to make compelling cases for evidence-based alcohol policies, regardless of the political winds.

​

In conclusion, as we attempt to influence alcohol policies and promote public health, our success will be determined by our ability to engage meaningfully with political parties and policymakers. By demystifying their ideologies and understanding the societal shifts that influence their standpoints, we empower ourselves to be more effective advocates, capable of navigating that complex political labyrinth and bringing about meaningful change.

​