I’m the IOP’s President. With Trump’s Election, We Can No Longer Be Nonpartisan.

Updated November 8, 2024, at 5:56 p.m.

On Tuesday, America made a choice. But nearly 70 million Americans did not vote for election denialism, violence against their compatriots, or the elimination of basic human rights.

Today, Harvard’s Institute of Politics has a choice to make too. In my personal view, nonpartisanship — a founding principle of the IOP — is no longer a tenable position in today’s political environment. Donald Trump’s imminent return to power underscores the importance of the IOP finally breaking from our long-standing commitment to it.

As this incoming administration charts its course, we must resist platforming anti-democratic voices in the guise of nonpartisanship. In fact, we must strive to defend principles of democracy, due process, and justice precisely to ensure that we can continue carrying out our age-old mission of nonpartisanship.

From the Jan. 6 insurrection to the wave of conservative voter suppression laws, anti-democratic action and rhetoric sits staunchly at the core of MAGA’s platform.

When democracy itself is under attack, nonpartisanship is not the hill to die on. And it certainly should not be used as an excuse to platform election deniers and those who seek to dismantle our democracy. People and rhetoric that enable violent, authoritarian, and oppressive governance have no place at an institute for civil political disagreement like the IOP.

On election night, with his unfounded claims of “massive cheating” in Pennsylvania, Trump once again signaled his interest in the erosion of American democracy. In stark contrast, the very next day Vice President Kamala Harris conceded electoral defeat, demonstrating a commitment to the peaceful transition of power.

The essence of democracy lies not just in constituents casting votes but also in candidates respecting the results of these votes. The IOP cannot ignore the reality that, as it stands, one party’s leadership actively betrays these democratic processes. True bipartisanship — and healthy nonpartisanship — is only possible when both sides of the aisle share a basic commitment to our country’s norms. Trump and his supporters have demonstrated that such a commitment can no longer be assumed.

My time in IOP leadership has been defined by a desire to navigate a space where both major political parties can find common ground. Nonpartisanship should not suppose moral equivalence between those upholding democratic norms and those actively tearing them down.

Let me be clear: The IOP has played and will always play an essential role in fostering intellectual vitality, promoting engaged citizenship, and facilitating meaningful political discourse on our campus. Over the course of the next four years, if the IOP’s pursuit of nonpartisanship fails to address this threat, it risks becoming complicit in the erosion of the values it seeks to uphold.

Election night felt like the culmination of my time at the IOP. It was a night when our Harvard community came together to show our shared respect for the democratic process. And yet, even as I worked to create a watch party that balanced the perspectives of Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between, it became clear that democracy itself was being dismantled at the ballot box.

The IOP is a civic institution. We must do more than merely observe democracy; we must defend and champion it when it is under attack. We have to be active participants in its defense and set an example as stewards of civic responsibility. Trump’s Republican party has forced a reckoning: Institutions must decide if they will be complicit as democracy is threatened or take a stand against these threats.

The IOP’s choice is clear: It is time to choose a commitment to democracy over a commitment to nonpartisanship.

Pratyush Mallick ’25 is a Government concentrator in Leverett House. He serves as the president of the Student Advisory Committee of Harvard’s Institute of Politics.