Op-ed: Why shouldn't identities be politicized?

The question of identity has become one of the most prevalent issues in contemporary political and intellectual debates. Its cultural, religious, linguistic, and historical dimensions influence the formation of individuals’ and groups’ consciousness and affect the cultural, social, and political construction of societies.

In my opinion, the problem is not the existence of identities per se, as a natural expression of human diversity, but their transformation into instruments of political struggle and competition for power, known as “politicization of identities.” When identity is transformed from an inclusive cultural framework into a means of mobilization and polarization, it becomes a source of division and tension rather than a factor of coexistence and cultural richness.

What makes the politicization of identities dangerous is that it threatens the unity and cohesion of society and undermines the concept of citizenship. The modern state is founded on the principle of equality among citizens before the law, regardless of their religious, linguistic, or ethnic affiliations, whereas identity-based discourse pushes for the categorization of individuals into closed groups that compete with one another for rights and privileges.

Instead of feeling like a full-fledged citizen, identity determines their position within society, which opens the door to exclusion, discrimination and lack of equal opportunity.

Furthermore, the politicization of identity fuels divisions, tensions, and conflicts within society. Political identities are often built on the idea of a sharp distinction between “us” and what sets us apart from “the other,” which creates a state of ongoing polarization and tension.

Numerous experiences throughout history have shown that the exploitation of sectarian, ethnic or religious affiliations in the political sphere has led to devastating conflicts and civil wars Conflicting groups begin to look at each other with suspicion and hostility rather than coexistence and national partnership.

Identity discourse is often used to distract from the real problems societies face, such as poverty, unemployment, education, health, and development. Some political figures stir emotions and attract supporters by raising identity issues rather than offering realistic solutions to social and economic problems.

Politics is thus transformed from an arena for the rational management of public affairs into an arena for symbolic and emotional conflicts.

Identity is not fixed or static; it is an evolving, multidimensional social and cultural construct. An individual may have multiple affiliations, such as national, cultural, religious, linguistic, and humanitarian. However, politicizing identity reduces a person to a single dimension, turning that dimension into a criterion by which to judge or categorize them. This leads to the creation of narrow stereotypes and weakens the bonds that unite society.

Rejecting the politicization of identities does not mean calling for the elimination of cultural, linguistic, or religious distinctiveness; rather, the aim is to manage this diversity within an inclusive national framework based on citizenship, justice, equality, and mutual recognition.

We have previously addressed this issue in our book ‘’Amazigh and National Identity: Between Political Discourse and Constitutional Enshrinement’’, in which we concluded that citizenship is the civil, rights-based framework capable of accommodating all differences, whatever their form.

Strong democratic societies are not those that deny pluralism, but those that succeed in turning it into a source of richness and complementarity rather than a cause of disunity and division.

The future of nations cannot be built on narrow loyalties and identity-based divisions, but rather on an inclusive national project that guarantees equality among all citizens and makes diversity a catalyst for unity, not a cause of disunity.

Mustapha Antra, Ph.D. University Researcher