There are 8 billion people on the surface of the earth, every head has an ideology that falls in the left- and right-wing political pendulum. Ideology is very important for human civilization. Human beings are social animals which have interaction with others. Sometimes the interaction leads to conflict which is based on political ideology. To define political ideology, it is a set of ideas, beliefs, and values in a recurring pattern.
Michael Burleigh publishes a book in 2000 ‘a new History’ in which he mentioned that “Our lives may be more boring than those who live in apocalyptic time, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy”. Political parties have a head who is known as a politician. Politician comes to the ground of politics with ideology in their own political pendulum. The swing of the political pendulum is based on political interest, not ideology.
Recently, in Pakistan’s political system where all party coalitions (PDM) are based on political interests, and they are not ideologically the same. Ideologies associated with the power structure. Politicians seek power. The use of power always takes place in the framework of ideology. In the digital world, political ideologies are changing as compared to 20th-century political parties. The 20th-century political ideologies are based on nationalism, socialism, conservatism, fascism, and liberalism. But with the emergence of technology, the world has become more connected under the banner of globalization. Globalization is the antithesis of nationalism.
Public policy is designed for the public in their daily based activities. To excavate the political ideologies, and shape public policy for example, in Pakistan, different political parties have different ideologies and party constitutions but there are some common points among them. Every political party wants development, infrastructure, education, health, energy, corruption, free administration, and maintaining law and order. The political actors are showing power in front of government officials in the form of a ‘public uprising’.
Sometimes the public uprising became too violent because they were backed by political ideology. In Pakistan in 2018, the violent protest of TLP was very challenging for police and other security forces. They destroyed public order and set up fire to police vehicles. Such a situation leads to anarchy and chaos. The policymaker historically visits the political party’s ideology and party constitution in a specific time frame.
Furthermore, beliefs about objective matters of fact are caused in no small part by political identity. This includes beliefs regarding the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, which tend to align with ideological commitments. These linkages between beliefs and political identity matter for behavior, and not just in the voting booth. Decisions about whether (and how) to adopt measures like social distancing rely in part upon how one evaluates the seriousness of the risk posed by the virus.
In this paper, we investigate the relationship between one’s political ideology, sources of information and news consumption, and COVID-19-oriented behavioral changes. We find that liberals and moderates make fewer trips than conservatives and are more likely to change their behavior in ways suggested by government recommendations and guidelines. A little effect of state-level orders, but we do find some indication that concern about COVID-19, and beliefs about the behavior of others can predict behavior changes.
Individuals often face dilemmas in which non-cooperation serves their self-interest and cooperation favors society at large. Cooperation is often considered a moral choice because it creates equality and fairness among citizens. Accordingly, individuals whose political ideology attaches greater value to equality than to agency and self-reliance should not only cooperate on more rather than less efficient public goods but also more on public goods from which individuals benefit equally rather than unequally. We examine this possibility by comparing ideologically left-leaning and right-leaning individuals’ cooperation on multiple public goods that varied in efficiency and (in)equality in returns. We find that left-leaning individuals cooperate more than right-leaning ones, but only on public goods that benefit everyone equally, and not more on public goods that generate inequalities.
Left-leaning individuals also trust and expect others to cooperate more on equal- versus unequal-returns public goods, while self-identified right-leaning individuals do not differentiate between these. Interestingly, ideology does not predict which public good is deemed more morally appropriate to cooperate on. To specify when and why self-identified leftists can(not) be expected to cooperate more than rightists and reveal how moral decision-making depends on structural elements of the public good provision problems that citizens face.
Understanding representation is central to politics. Numerous studies assess under which conditions politicians to share citizens’ ideological preferences. However, under which conditions bureaucrats share citizens’ ideological preferences have not been systematically studied. Yet, bureaucratic preferences shape policy outcomes. Our paper thus studies because bureaucrats are more right or left-wing than citizens in some countries and points of time, yet not others. We theorize that the political ideologies of past incumbents shape this variation. Incumbents can select ideologically aligned bureaucrats and socialize bureaucrats into ideological preferences; moreover, prospective bureaucrats may self-select into ideologically aligned governments. As bureaucratic tenure exceeds political tenure, this politicization has lasting effects.
To focus is on how citizens’ policy beliefs—their operational ideologies—are associated with the views of different political groups. First, we find that the attribution of ideologically extreme political views to an individual’s peer significantly reduces interest in interpersonal interaction but find limited evidence that partisan group membership alone induces social polarization. In the second, we show that citizens’ policy views are strongly associated with their perceptions of their own group as well as their counter-group. Together, our results have important implications for understanding the consequences of increased polarization and antipathy in contemporary politics.
To conclude, political ideology and public policy are moving parallel to each other. Pakistan is a developing country with 76-year age, so the institutions need structural reforms right to vote, the feminist movement (for women’s rights), the transgender act, and political participation. Debate and political discussions on the regional and international political systems a sound contribution to the healthy political development of the young generation.
