WE are rapidly descending into what can be described as a tribal trap. Political individuals and groups have become so entrenched in their own beliefs that any opposing view is dismissed outright. This leads both sides into a perpetual tussle to prove the other party wrong. It often comes at the cost of broader political and societal goals, compelling political groups and actors to prioritise political affiliation over nation-building.

This tribal divide has intensified over a short span of time. The issue lies not with the debate but the manner in which the debate is carried out. Leading political parties have each assembled an elite group of polemicists whose sole purpose is to propagate incoherent rhetoric. Political old-timers have been relegated to the backfield while performative commentators steal the show. Profanity has become mainstream with politicians mindlessly calling one another out on national television and talk shows sporadically featuring brawls. The brawling participants are cheered on by their respective followers, with each side asserting their leader emerged triumphant. The chief issue remains who dealt the most blows, putting the actual political discourse on the back-burner. While it most certainly benefits television viewership, such dispute-resolution methods fail to translate into broader national benefit.

The tribal trap manifests itself through several dangerous types of behaviour, including affective polarisation, where individuals don’t just disagree with the opposition but also develop a strong dislike for them. It might also include motivated reasoning, which filters information that is in favour of one’s group. Another feature is zero-sum thinking, where the gain of the other party is seen as a total loss for oneself, leaving no room for a modus vivendi. The tribal trap is further deepened by cult-like personality following, in which loyalty is often tied to an individual rather than political principles.

Rejecting an opponent’s viewpoint results in misinformed individuals. Mark Twain put it fittingly: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Certainty, therefore, in polarised environments often becomes a liability rather than a strength.

The real challenge lies in aligning beliefs with truth.

But why do people resort to tribalism? The simplest answer is that they feel threatened. Some might even argue that humans have an innate inclination towards tribalism. The real challenge lies in aligning beliefs with truth rather than with tribal loyalty. Humans are hardwired to protect their beliefs. When an individual’s identity is affiliated with a certain group, dissent is seen as disagreement with their core beliefs and values, subsequently eliciting gut-level responses.

In the political context, parties resort to tribalism for a variety of reasons. Without it, the ruling coalition may be at risk of losing popularity and being ousted from government. Whereas opposition parties resort to tribalism for reasons attributed to survivalism and zero-sum mobilisation.

Due to evolving digital algorithms, we increasingly interact with people who think like us and have similar beliefs. This is also known as an echo chamber. These echo chambers enable reinforcement of similar beliefs and replace critical thinking with intellectual stagnation. Mainstream media has also begun to mimic sensationalism found on social media platforms. Outrage now dominates as the new business model. Constant exposure to confrontational discourse poses the risk of normalising conflict, undermining civil discourse and subsequently acting as a catalyst for political polarisation.

Addressing this ch­­allenge requires a multilayered approach. On an institutional level, there is a need to strengthen parliamentary debate culture and ensure media accountability. On a societal level, critical thinking needs to be encouraged and dialogue needs to be promoted. In the digital realm, misinformation needs to be regulated and platform responsibility must be encouraged to ensure a conscious shift towards balanced discourse.

Labelling political rivals over their dissenting views violates democratic norms. An individual who differs may be wrong, but opinion is a fundamental right. Hence, all shades of it must be treated with dignity and respect. A democracy cannot flourish when tribal loyalty is prioritised over national cohesion and informed discourse. While the current political landscape presents a bleak outlook, all hope is not lost. Wherever there are divergences, there are also glimmers of hope.

The writer is a graduate of FCS, NDU and holds a Master’s degree in strategic studies from CIPS, Nust.

Published in Dawn, May 1st, 2026