Everyone generally hates politics. When people think of politics, we think of Presidents and political parties. When people think about political associations, it's all about being a moderate or a conservative, Marxism, or Democracy, and one should choose between the others. And those are right. But when people think of arguments between two development teams over one goal, some might think it's not politics but small bickering.
It's politics. And we've been growing with it ever since we were born. Some people ignore it, but one way or another already had mingled with politics of some kind. Whatever the choice, it has led us to some of the best and worst decisions in our lives.
Based on multiple explanations, politics is a general term when a group of people has set up a rule in a society that can affect everyone. Based on that term, everyone is politically involved one way or another. An example, for instance, can be as simple as not following your friends and choosing the values of your family against them. You're essentially not swayed by the mindset of your friends and became part of the behavior you had always grown with your family.
Another example can be when two group leaders in a single group want to approach certain situations for one intended output. In this example, a solution to calculate the total equipment a class has in total. One can suggest creating an automated program that counts all of the equipment while the other calls for manually sorting and counting each based on the sorting measure used. They're both suitable choices, but the solution can be left up and decided to their group.
If the group were to choose to create an automated program, those that wanted to do it manually doesn't like it. If the group decided to do it manually, the remaining members to frown at the decision instead.
Of course, there's the third and fourth option— compromise or do nothing. But in the sense of running a country, there is no third and fourth option, unless there's a third political party wanting to destroy the status quo and attempting to run that is still leading to choose one of another.
I consider the third option to be the safest option possible, but it is also with the highest risk as you cannot change the mindsets of two radical sides that have formed due to one question that can change the status quo and the group as a whole.
When people try the fourth option that is known as doing nothing, it is still a political choice. You ignore all choices and let the final decision run on luck and the choices of others.
From my explanation, this is why (in my observations) when November 2020 IFP came to be, those that sided with the anti-IFP mindset shunned people who are either both pro-IFP and neutral, forcing them to choose sides. There's a small percentage of people that joined the pro-IFP side, citing benefits and revolutionary changes; those that joined the anti-IFP side were citing the disadvantages and the cautions of being able to fall to the greed which caused our problems in the first place.
Politics is a touchy subject. Explaining politics is even more so. Trying to push someone to a side will be like pushing a boulder from the top of a mountain. You can lead it in your direction, but there will still be a chance that it will backfire, and you will get the brunt of the backlash and support.
With all that and said, this is Rowan, signing off.
Nice one