With the end of the Cold War a quarter century ago, Francis Fukuyama wrote an intellectually exciting book announcing The End of History. He meant that the 19th and 20th century ideological disputes over how to structure society politically had ended; liberal democracy had won a decisive victory. He later wrote several books modifying his early enthusiasm.
Today, serious challenges once again threaten the idea of liberal democracy.
Donald Trump’s spectacular advance towards securing the nomination of the Republican Party for the US presidency is a symptom of what’s happening around the world.
A growing swell of extreme nationalism, or hyper- nationalism, has become a challenge to core democratic values. The largest two democracies, the United States and India, are witnessing surges of nationalist passion; one is the world’s most influential, while the other is the most populous and arguably the most diverse. The quality, perhaps fate, of democracy in these two nations is of consequence to the future course of political progress.
As global society evolves at a time of immense technological and economic change, nativism and identity politics are inevitable reactions. But they pose serious threats to the liberal values that underpin democracy.
‘Liberal’ here is not a synonym for ‘leftist’ as commonly used in the US. Liberalism in the classical sense is the spine of any democratic body politic. It means openness in society and the economy, acceptance of difference and diversity within a frame of tolerance and free speech, public civility and other mores that define democracy. Left extremists have their own peculiar hatreds for liberalism. Today, however, hyper-nationalism is a far-right phenomenon.
Authoritarians of the right and the left have long spouted hyper-nationalistic slogans to coerce people into submission. What is worrying today is that far-right political parties and movements have sprouted across the entire democratic world.
In Europe, where liberalism was reborn in the modern era, right-wing forces are using nativism to corner significant popular support. The trend is evident in not only former Soviet bloc countries like Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, which have relatively recent experience of democracy; it has sprouted across western Europe’s established democracies, including France and Germany.
In India, a hyper-nationalist government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has either stayed indifferent or quietly encouraged activists of the Hindutva brigade to carry out numerous instances of cultural-nationalist identity confrontations, often violent, in a country that has a unique range of linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity. Fanning flames of hyper-nationalism is easy in a post-colonial environment; both the right and the left have done it the past. But the Hindu right has added the fuel of an exclusivist religious-cultural identity to a volatile mix to redefine the idea of India.
In the US, the campaign rhetoric of conservatives, especially Trump, is poisonous. Nativist dog whistles have been around for long and two terms of Barack Obama as president have stirred latent identity anxieties in sections of the country’s white population. Now nativist or racist talk is openly voiced by candidates as a nationalist virtue to make America great again.
Does a correlation exist between support for extreme nationalist or nativist views and a desire for authoritarianism? Recent research at the University of Massachusetts, Vanderbilt University and the University of North Carolina clearly suggests there is, writes Amanda Taub at vox.com. But even without scholarly research common sense suggests that hatred or fear of the Other, which is the siren song of nativists, works to undermine democracy. These are values like tolerance of differences in ethnicity, religion, appearance and speech among citizens of a secular democracy; acceptance of a framework of civilised discourse of disagreement; adjusting to a changing sociocultural environment within each democratic nation and in the world.
Moderate conservatives and progressives may differ on the speed and intensity of that inexorably changing reality and on how to deal with it. But they agree to disagree in a democratic manner eventually to elect their preferences to public office. Hyper-nationalists and nativists, on the other hand, challenge the basic norms of democracy. India and the US, at starkly different ends of the global development spectrum, are the world’s prominent examples showing how unifying nationalism can coexist within a liberal framework. The worry is, might either or both succumb to a hyper-nationalism that strangles democracy?
(Source: Article by Shri Gautam Adhikari in The Times of India dated 19-03-2016.)
