The Middle Way as Mutual Acceptability: Buddhist Political Thought and the Normative Logic of Centrist Governance
This paper reinterprets the Buddhist Middle Way not as mere moderation but as a practical framework for centrist governance that establishes political legitimacy through mutually acceptable arrangements among disagreeing actors, thereby avoiding absolutism and domination without requiring shared comprehensive justifications.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In a world where neighbors often cannot agree on the most basic facts of life, from how to care for the environment to what history means, the task of governing together can feel impossible. When people hold deeply different values, the usual political solution is to find a middle ground, a compromise that splits the difference between two opposing sides. This approach assumes that if we simply move halfway between two extremes, we will find a fair solution. However, this idea often fails because it treats political conflict like a line on a map, ignoring the fact that people are not just standing at different points, but are bound together in a shared life. They depend on the same laws, the same economy, and the same community, even when they hate each other's ideas. The question then becomes not how to force everyone to agree, but how to build a system where people can live together without one group crushing the others, even while they remain deeply divided.
A new paper by Kazuo Kadokawa of Tokai University offers a fresh way to think about this problem by looking at an ancient Buddhist concept known as the Middle Way. While many people hear "Middle Way" and think of a gentle, lukewarm compromise or a refusal to take a strong stand, Kadokawa argues that the original idea is much more rigorous and practical. He suggests that the Middle Way is not about finding a midpoint between two extremes, but about refusing to treat any single viewpoint as the absolute, final truth. In political terms, this means that no group should be allowed to claim that their specific values or identity are the only ones that matter, or that they have the right to rule over everyone else. Instead, the goal is to create arrangements that different groups can accept, even if they do not agree on why those arrangements are good.
The paper reconstructs this ancient philosophy as a modern guide for governance. Kadokawa starts by distinguishing between two very different concepts: agreement and acceptability. Agreement happens when everyone shares the same reasons for doing something, like everyone believing in the same religious or moral truth. In a diverse society, this kind of deep agreement is often impossible to achieve. Acceptability, however, is a lower but more powerful bar. It asks whether a rule or a policy can be lived with by people who have different reasons for supporting it. For example, one person might support a law because they believe it protects freedom, while another supports it because they believe it ensures safety. They do not agree on the ultimate reason, but they both accept the law as a way to keep the peace. Kadokawa argues that a healthy political order does not need everyone to agree on the big questions; it only needs everyone to accept the shared rules of the game.
This approach relies heavily on the Buddhist idea of interdependence, which is the understanding that nothing exists in isolation. In politics, this means that citizens are not isolated islands; their lives are woven together. When one group wins a political battle, it often changes the conditions for everyone else. If a government tries to impose one group's view as the only valid one, it breaks the web of connection that holds society together. Kadokawa suggests that the Middle Way is a discipline of judgment that stops people from turning their own partial views into absolute commands. It asks leaders to look at how their decisions affect the whole network of relationships, rather than just focusing on their own side's victory. This prevents politics from becoming a war where the goal is to erase the other side, and instead turns it into a continuous effort to find arrangements that everyone can inhabit without feeling dominated or excluded.
The paper then applies this logic to the modern idea of "centrist governance." Usually, centrism is criticized as being vague or weak, a place where politicians avoid making hard choices just to stay in the middle. Kadokawa redefines this term. He argues that true centrist governance is not about standing halfway between the left and the right on a political spectrum. Instead, it is about building a system where no single ideology is allowed to become absolute. A centrist government, in this new sense, is one that actively works to prevent any group from dominating the others or being excluded from the political process. It is not about being neutral or having no opinions; it is about having the strength to say that no single viewpoint should be allowed to silence the rest. This kind of governance requires constant work to ensure that even those who lose a vote or disagree with a policy still feel they have a standing in the community.
To illustrate how this might look in practice, the author points to recent political movements in Japan, such as the Centrist Reform Alliance. While the paper does not claim these groups are perfect examples of Buddhist thought, it notes that their language of "livelihood-first" politics and consensus-building reflects a desire to find arrangements that work for divided people. The paper suggests that the real value of this approach is not in finding a perfect solution that makes everyone happy, but in creating a structure where disagreement does not lead to destruction. It is a way of managing conflict without trying to eliminate it.
Ultimately, the paper concludes that the Middle Way offers a strong, not weak, framework for politics. It does not promise that we will ever stop fighting or that we will all finally agree on the meaning of life. Instead, it offers a practical method for keeping the peace. By refusing to let any single group treat its own views as the only truth, and by focusing on arrangements that are acceptable to all sides, societies can maintain order even when deep divisions remain. This approach shifts the focus from winning arguments to building a shared home where people with different values can continue to live together. It is a call to replace the desire for total victory with the discipline of mutual acceptance, ensuring that the political order remains a place where everyone, even the losers, can still participate.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.