2 A worldwide value divide

How widespread really is the language of left and right? One could
recognize the clash about equality just described, but consider it
largely a concern for experts and politicians, at a distance from the
preoccupations and views of most people around the world. Outside
the Western world, in particular, the left–right dichotomy may seem
less relevant as a heuristic tool. This chapter uses global public opinion
trends to demonstrate, on the contrary, that practically everywhere
citizens understand this representation and position themselves
along an axis going from left to right. The left–right cleavage is neither
Western, norpasse ́. It is ubiquitous and very much contemporary.
This chapter presents worldwide survey results that establish the
near-universal relevance of the left–right division and its coherence for
most people, who associate the two sides with the expected attitudes
about equality, redistribution, and the role of the state. Country-
specific data also confirms that these findings hold across very different
regions and cultures of the world. The left–right debate is truly global.
Indeed, in both national and comparative studies of public opinion, no
cognitive instrument, no scale measuring personal values is more
powerful than the way respondents locate themselves on the left–right
continuum. Even scholars who claim that the left–right cleavage is in
decline or in transformation cannot but conclude that it still incor-
porates most of the other attitude differences they seek to explain.
This opposition is the most central value divide that political parties
built as they struggled for, and about, democracy. Encompassing and
enduring, this ideological division survived both its origins in class
politics and the contemporary transition to post-industrial societies.
Simple and stable, but also multi-faceted, the left–right dichotomy
helps citizens all over the world organize their views according to their
most important values, and as they do so, achieve consistency in the
face of complexity.

32