LinkedIn and Politics: A Necessary Disruption or a Dangerous Shift?

For years, the (and my personal) unwritten rule on LinkedIn has been that politics should remain outside the platform. As a business network, LinkedIn has served as a place for professional exchange, job searching, corporate branding, and industry insights. Unlike social media spaces such as Twitter or Facebook, where political discourse often turns into heated and polarizing debates, LinkedIn was perceived as a sanctuary from ideological clashes. The argument for keeping politics entirely out of LinkedIn is straightforward: professionals come here for business, not for arguments about policies, elections, or governance. There are ample platforms where such discussions can take place, so why risk transforming LinkedIn into yet another battleground of opinion wars? A purely business-focused LinkedIn ensures a certain niveau and keeps the discussions centered on economy, innovation, and career growth.

Yet, the reality is that politics and business are deeply intertwined. Economic policies, regulations, trade agreements, and geopolitical shifts all have a direct impact on industries, corporations, and individual careers. A more nuanced approach argues that political topics can have a place on LinkedIn, as long as they are discussed in a rational, fact-based, and solution-oriented manner. Instead of ideological or emotional polemics, this perspective suggests that discussions should focus on how political decisions influence economic systems, job markets, taxation, trade policies, and corporate governance. The challenge with this approach lies in the execution: maintaining objectivity, resisting the pull of partisanship, and ensuring that discussions remain constructive rather than divisive. But if done right, this could elevate the quality of discourse on LinkedIn by fostering informed debates that contribute to better decision-making among business leaders and professionals.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”, Joseph Goebbels

The third and most radical alternative is the complete embrace of politics on LinkedIn, where discussions are not just limited to economy-related policies but expand to broader societal issues. This would mean that LinkedIn ceases to be a distinct business platform and instead becomes yet another social media forum where professional and personal, rational and emotional, fact-based and ideological perspectives all merge. The potential risk is that LinkedIn could lose its professional character and turn into a space where political activism overshadows its original purpose. At the same time, there is an argument to be made that politics is already here, whether people want it or not. Some political groups and individuals already use LinkedIn to spread their narratives, particularly those on the far-right, leveraging the platform’s credibility to give their messages an air of legitimacy. Ignoring this reality does not make it disappear; it only leaves the space open for certain voices to dominate unchallenged.

What Option should we take?

Personally, I have undergone a transformation in my perspective on this issue. Having been on LinkedIn for a long, long time, I once firmly believed that this platform should remain politics-free. The focus, in my view, was on professional growth, economic discussions, and corporate networking. Political discourse belonged elsewhere. Over time, however, I have moved towards the second and, increasingly, even the third alternative. The world has changed, and with it, the nature of business discourse. We are living in a time where democratic values, economic freedoms, and social stability are facing unprecedented challenges. To pretend that these developments do not belong on a platform like LinkedIn is to ignore the realities. They are already on the platform.... if we want or not!

“Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”, Winston Churchill

We are witnessing a moment of historical transformation. In many democracies, traditional political parties have become almost indistinguishable from one another, their ideological lines blurred to the point of irrelevance. This has created a vacuum, leading to the rise of new political movements on both the far-left and the far-right. While competition in politics can, like in business, drive progress, it becomes dangerous when extremist factions start undermining the very foundations of democratic governance. The United States provides a striking example of how a once stable political landscape can descend into polarization that threatens institutional stability. A similar pattern is emerging in Germany, where the rise of the AfD carries the potential to shift the political balance in a way that could have serious economic and social consequences.

I still remember when Franz-Josef Strauss (for sure not my most favorite politician) warned righlty that no political force should ever emerge to the far right or far left. At the time, the rise of the Green Party was met with alarm, but in retrospect, their emergence did not lead to the collapse of Western democracy. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the movements gaining traction today. Figures like Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and Alice Weidel represent a different kind of political shift—one that threatens not just policy changes but the fundamental rules of the democratic game. If such forces gain significant power, we may see Strauss’ prediction/fear finally come true.

Currently we have (unfortunately) only one option

The question is no longer whether LinkedIn should allow political discourse. That debate is already settled by the reality that political narratives are present and shaping discussions on this platform. The real question is how responsible professionals, executives, and business leaders engage with this discourse. Do we leave the field open for those who spread disinformation and ideological propaganda? Or do we take an active role in ensuring that rational, democratic, and economically sound discussions shape the conversation?

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”, George Orwell

In times like these, long-standing rules must be questioned. The assumption that politics has no place in professional discourse is a luxury we can no longer afford. Those who seek to dismantle democratic institutions and economic freedoms do not hold back; they push their narratives with full force. If the responsible majority remains silent, the space will be ceded to those who seek to manipulate it. LinkedIn may have been designed as a business network, but the world we conduct business in is deeply shaped by political realities. The only way forward is to engage—thoughtfully, rationally, but decisively.

Nie wieder!