The aftermath of the election was something to behold. As the last few constituency results were trickling in on the morning of May 8 and eyes around the UK were peeking at the BBC News website between Word documents, comments began to overtake social media.
"Best election ever."
"The NHS is doomed."
"I'm really pleased with that result!"
"I'm moving."
With a surprise surge of Tory support across England, a suffering vote for Labour, especially in Scotland, and a devastation for the Liberal Democrats throughout - all in the face of predictions upon predictions of a close race and a potential hung parliament - some people were feeling the need to rant on social media as it became clear that their political views would not be represented in the government for the next five years. And those whose ideals were met would feel the need to reply.
The problem is that politics is fundamentally divisive. The two ends of the political spectrum have extremely different ideals which at their most basic level slice people into two categories: the rich people and the poor people. While in our daily lives we can coexist with each other without discussing who earns how much, can afford what and is how well off, come election time, everyone's true allegiances come to the fore and a crack begins to form as 'political discussions' commence.
It is difficult when someone doesn't support your cause. You have a case, you have compelling reasons and you are convinced by them. So why, then, can you not talk your discussion buddy round? Why are they failing to see your point? WHY?! Topics which make people so impassioned, as money and politics do, can't be discussed calmly, it is just prone to arguments. And before you know it, in a large number of cases, the crack has become a chasm and what was a discussion has descended into a mutual exchange of "I'm not someone to tell others what to think, BUT...", "No offence, BUT...", insistence that the other's facts are wrong and belittling of offerings of information.
I'm not against political discussions. Pick apart what the government is doing, lay it bare and discuss whether it is right or wrong with anyone and everyone. By all means, question authority and hold the ones in charge accountable for what they do. But it's not the same to belittle and patronise people and suggest that others are voting they way they do because they are uninformed. And in the end, it doesn't achieve very much now that votes have been cast for the next five years, apart from high blood pressure and the need to go make yourself a coffee before you shatter your keyboard.
I grew up in Bulgaria with my parents and grandparents teaching me that it is impolite to ask another person who he or she is voting for. It is a personal decision, not to be influenced by guilt or embarrassment or, more unpleasantly, intimidation. People can - and do, oh boy, do they! - discuss politics in Bulgaria, but if they don't say who they're voting for, you shouldn't ask.
And on this post-election day, when people were sleep-deprived, edgy and feeling especially impassioned, I made a concerted effort to stay out of every political discussion going, however displeased I was with the morning's news, because what's done is done. So, I don't care who started it, I'm finishing it.
