Centrism is moderation and pragmatism; the embrace of complexity; the deep commitment to liberal democracy

Aurelian Craiutu (AC): First of all, congratulations on the publication of The Center Must Hold: Why Centrism is the Answer to Extremism and Polarization, the book you recently edited, and which was released in the UK on June 27. I was delighted and honored to contribute a chapter on moderation as a face of centrism. Would you please describe briefly for the Romanian readers first, who are you, and second, explain how your previous political experience motivated you to publish this book?

Yair Zivan (YZ): Thank you for the warm words and thank you especially for your excellent chapter on moderation which I’m sure we’ll get to more later.

My very brief biography is that I was born in the north of Israel and grew up in Leicester, England. I went to university at University College London, worked for a few years in the U.K. before moving back to Israel. Since being back I worked for President Shimon Peres and for the past decade as foreign policy advisor to the leader of Israel’s largest centrist party, Yair Lapid. I’ve worked for him during his term as Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Finance Minister and Leader of the Opposition (twice). Working in politics, and particularly in government, convinced me of the need for a coherent, articulate and energized political centrism to combat the rise of populism, extremism and polarization. This book is my contribution to that effort.

AC: Could you give our readers a brief description of the book, its table of contents, and main contributions to present debates on how to save liberal democracies around the world? What does your book bring new, compared with previous books on centrism, like The Vital Center published by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1949? Obviously, the world has changed a lot since then.

Centrism seems to have more than one face and your book brings contributions from scholars, politicians, and journalists from many counties and continents. What do they have in common?

YZ: The book makes two parallel cases – the first is that there a coherent and identifiable political approach called “centrism” and we will go into exactly what that means later I’m sure. The second is that centrism is the best bulwark against the rising tides of extremism, populism and polarization that we’re facing in democratic societies. 

The book itself is based around a series of 36 essays from leading centrist thinkers, writers, policy-makers and leaders from around the world. I think itcs the first time anyone has tried to bring together a series of centrists to put forward a coherent case for centrism and its approach to the challenges facing the world. When you read the different essays it becomes clear that all the contributors share a set of values, believe in very similar policy approaches and all have a political instinct about the kind of culture and approach we need to politics.

AC: Can you briefly define centrism and explain its relation to other political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, or social-democracy? What is the relationship between centrism, moderation, and gradualism in general? In a new book on incrementalism, Gradual, Greg Berman and Audrey Fox argued small changes compound over time and can make a big difference, adding up to something substantial. What would be, in your view, such small concrete changes that we can do today?

ZV: Centrism is based upon a clear set of ideals and principles which the authors of the book all share – the importance of moderation and pragmatism; the embrace of complexity; the deep commitment to liberal democracy; the belief in equality of opportunity, and that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation we can make people’s lives better. Centrism seeks out the most productive and effective approach to tackle those competing tensions that exist in managing a country today. It looks at those tensions and searches for the best way to manage them, rather than looking to see how one can totally overcome the other. For example, the tensions that exist between globalization and local communities, civil rights and national security, free markets and social-safety nets. 

It’s also important to make clear what centrist isn’t – it is not the middle point between wherever the left and right happen to be at any given moment. That attempt to position yourself in the middle might be politically expedient in the short term, but it doesn’t provide a long-term foundation for a political idea. Centrism, when properly articulated and implemented, sets the agenda that others must respond to and so becomes a driving focal point of politics.

In terms of the small changes we can make today, it really depends on the political context in each country but there are some challenges we all need to face – for example taking the necessary steps to prepare our countries for the enormous technological changes that are coming our way. 

AC: You wrote in a piece recently published in The Atlantic: “Amid the rise in populism, extremism, and polarization around the world, centrism is frequently dismissed by its critics as too poorly defined, too short on passion, too weak to serve as an effective response. But this misunderstands both political centrism and the dangerous trends it seeks to counter. In fact, centrism offers the most potent antidote to the excesses of populism.” (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/centrism-populism-extremism-politics/678776/).

Many would disagree with your last statement, especially today in the wake of the crisis of the center in France or the US. What would you have to say to younger radicals on both the Left and the Right who believe that advocating incremental change is a moral failure and radical reforms are desperately needed today?

YZ: I’d say that I understand the appeal of radical reforms but they are rarely sustainable or successful. The long-term goal can be radical but the way to get there is through careful steps that allow a majority of the public to become convinced that we’re on the right path. One of the advantages of moderation is that it allows us to recalibrate and consider the idea that maybe not everything we set out with is correct, that maybe people who think differently have something to add to the policy process, that some of the outcomes were not as we intended. 

I would also say that the most radical goal at the moment is to change the direction in which global politics is going. If the pendulum seems to be swinging slowly towards the extremes and the populists, then there is nothing more radically important than preventing that and bringing it back to an effective approach to politics. 

And finally, I’d draw on their passion and I’d make clear to them something that they might not like at first but I hope they’ll learn to respect – I’m as passionate about the set of values laid out above as they are about their values. The defense of liberal democracy for me, is a defense of the kind of world we want to live in. A politics of hope is a politics to create the kind of society I want to live in. They should never confuse moderation and pragmatism with tepidness or a lack of heart.

AC: You live in Israel where the challenges of defending centrism as obviously different from those in the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. What would be the lessons of your book that might be relevant for Romanian readers?

YZ: I think the lessons of the book can apply to countries across the world, especially those who feel that there might be a risk to liberal democracy in their country or who feel that their politics is heading towards a populism that will ultimately fail to deliver for them.

AC: It is common to compare our period with the pre-WW II one. What our present period seems to share with the 1930s is arguably the degree of hyper-polarization and the increasing weakness of center parties and personalities like Emmanuel Macron in France. No particular outcome is inevitable and none is guaranteed either, which may be good or bad news. What do you think of all that and what do you make of the comparison with the 1930s?

YZ: I’m wary of historical comparisons, but we can definitely learn from history about where extremism, polarization and populism can lead us if they remain unchecked. It’s why centrists need to lead the fight against them with clarity and passion. Don’t miss the moment when democracy slips away. 

I definitely agree that no particular outcome is inevitable. The politics of hope, as defined by Rabbi Sacks whom I quote in the book, sees hope as an active virtue (as opposed to optimism which is a passive one).  That means hope is the belief that we can set out a positive vision and then take action to make it happen. It isn’t a passive process. It’s in our control.