Most intellectuals who are currently “followed” and considered relevant, belong to a sect and therefore adhere to a particular set of beliefs. It benefits in a way that is very strange to democracy. The general mass tends to associate a topic of discussion with a handful of faces boasting a solid foundation and significant research in the area concerned. But due to the presence, or rather absence of individuals who can flow both for and against the motion in a particular subject, people are further divided on the basis of views resonating with their own hard established beliefs. For a particular topic, a study from all the extreme standpoints is therefore rare, and often not encouraged.

Benefits.

• In such a system, the supply stations of facts or opinions following a particular extreme, are often common knowledge. Therefore, each standpoint is heavily studied and documented. People who want to be aware of every possible argument or counterargument can therefore satisfy themselves through varied and very well documented sources.
• Promotes the need of a dialogue, and precise progression of views.

Disadvantages.

• In case of ambiguous or controversial situations this system holds the risk of a heavily influenced audience. One of the extremes might stand out and appeal to a greater number not because of better arguments but because of a better targeted repetition of arguments.
• Subjects every situation to intense simplification. Propagandas ride on the sheer segregation of facts on the basis of their appeal to a particular ideology.

What is centrism?

The centrism refers to a belief catering to the need of genuine solutions that require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion. In politics, centrism is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right. (Source - wikipedia.com) Centrism holds the potential to simultaneously offend both politically right and left, and is therefore not very popular. Neutrality is often disappointing, in this age of frequent activism the unwillingness to pronounce a sect right or wrong completely on the basis of blatantly simplified mainstream views, is neither appealing nor very easy to practice. Centrism unfortunately or fortunately continues to be a very lonely stance partly due to popular agendas, interference of emotions in subjective situations and the general absence of a will to consider all possible angles to a situation. Does centrism mean, advocating activism on every extreme or does it indicate a will to almost exclusively find an extremely moderate stance? Centrism at present in politics, can mean not succumbing to agendas of any one particular extreme but rather collecting, verifying and discouraging or encouraging, bad or good policies associated with all extremes.

Benefits.

• In a democratic country, if the two ends do not somehow co-operate, we are in for a rigid deadlock or massively swinging policies. A policy will either face extreme praise majorly, or extreme backlash. In such a system, centrism is necessary for complete analysis of disadvantages and advantages of every policy.
• Centrism promotes a blend of best ideas, and healthy discussion over each and every policy a society ponders over.

Disadvantages.

• A system made up entirely of centrists has the risk of being complacent. Discussions will take too much time, dilemma over policies will be very frequent.
• Progressive thoughts can in some cases be undermined.

It should be noted that these are disadvantages of another undesirable form of centrism popularly termed as ‘Dead Centrism’. Dead centrism advocates searching for an almost criminally moderate solution for every problem. Dead centrism can be an enemy to progress as any willingness towards more progressive policies is somewhat curbed and discussed upon for a little too long.

The recent netflix documentary, ‘The Social Dilemma’ is one of the very few and moderately successful efforts to analyze every thread of a political fabric. However, a mistake that creeped into the documentary was the common trap of collectively considering the far right and far left as the ‘extremes’ in attempts made to mimic a real world situation. Another shortcoming of the documentary was in unifying the denialist centrism with the progressive centrism. Progressive centrism believes in holding all far right, far left or centrism accountable for possible gaps in a society. The denialist centrism however coexists with the conspiracist and reactionary right. “The Social Media”, conveniently chooses to show all real world examples of social media induced threats to democracy arrissing from the far right, but still refuses to segregate between the two extremes and comments on politics with a very generic frame. It fails to capture the complete picture of how the radical centrists perceive the ongoing rise of far right or far left. Due to the encroachment of general internet resources by ideologies of extremes, the definition or purpose of centrism has been fundamentally rewritten as an evil effort to break down democracy. But in truth, we need a definition of extremism in terms of centrists and not the other way around.