Last week I attended a lecture by noted American political philosopher and author Francis Fukuyama in London. The celebrity author was speaking on “Exploring Contemporary Identity Politics and the Struggle for Recognition”. It was a ticketed event but the hall was packed largely with young people but a fair amount of senior elderly academics and a few wanderers like me had also found their way to the venue. We all wanted to listen to one of the most eminent political thinkers of our times. For me, it was a rare privilege to listen to Professor Fukuyama in person whose all books I have read religiously and often followed his lectures on You Tube.
Those who
have been following Professor Fukuyama would have found his observations during
this lecture on expected lines. However, the conversation and Q&A sessions offered
an opportunity to listen to his perspective on several newer areas. The professor
offered an over view of challenges facing democracy in contemporary era, which varied
from rise of populism to attack on institutions but the worst could be rise of
right wing identity politics in recent times. He defined it in terms of an
individual’s beliefs, perception and outlook being shaped by his or her racial,
ethnic, religious and linguistic identity at the cost of individual identity as
a citizen of a state. He also dealt with threat to institutions in the wake of
rising trend of leaders distrusting their own institutions and officials and
creating confusion and unpredictability by relying on their own individual
discretion. He also emphasized on divisive impact of identity politics that could
derail the governance agenda and fragment societies. Both during the lecture
and discussions subsequently, he explained the relevance of individual dignity
in democracy and reluctance of some to accept the same level of dignity that
was universally available to all in democracies. I am sure the lecture would
soon be available on You Tube and hence I am avoiding greater details.
Prof
Fukuyama certainly offered a lot of food for thought for someone like me who
has been deeply interested in governance and democracy from ever since I could
think of. I did make a brief observation during Q&A session and tried
to bring in an Indian perspective on values, norms and traditions of people-centric
governance with restraint on political authority, that constitutes the core of democracy,
from Mauryan era in India (I have
written it on my blog earlier). On my query whether the professor thought it
was time for the democracy to transition to the next higher stage of evolution,
the humility of one of the greatest minds of our times was simply touching. He said
he would like to listen from me as he had not seriously thought on what could
be a better form of government than the prevailing democratic one. I was indeed
lucky to exchange a few words with him later. I am hopeful of presenting a
futuristic perspective, whatever it may be worth, on the direction in which democracy
can potentially proceed in pursuit of a greater people-centric vision of
governance, combining some of the Indian and the Western ethos, values and
traditions.
We as people and society in our times have enormous
potential to create such physical and social spaces that can enhance the
quality of our existence, productivity and ability to collaborate and compete
with each other. A more secure, harmonious and stable world is certainly possible
where each can have a better all round existence as well as be in a more
harmonious relationship with our respective societies and external world beyond that. The
other alternative is a catastrophic destruction
with easier access to destructive technologies in the context of increasing
space for conflict and eroding capability of institutions to address these. I
shall soon be coming out with detailed and specific ideas in this direction.
Subsequent post-lecture interactions with many of
the academics and very large number of young people from across the world was
quite interesting. A cross section of young students from different parts of
the world were so courteous and discussion was so animated that some of them walked
me up to the King’s Cross Station from where I had to catch a train. From
perspective of youth, it was so heartening to see that they were making friends
across their identity of race, religion and language, defying the so-called
wave of parochialism that was being talked earlier. Many of them had seriously read
Professor Fukuyama as well as other political philosophers and it was treat to
listen to them. Their commitment and sincerity towards a fairer world reminded
me of my own younger days when my friends I used to be equally passionate and sincere
in believing that the world would soon change to be fairer and more humane with
our own contributions in some manner.
Interactions with senior academics and even a few retired
professionals suggested that people in the West were indeed worried at the
prospect of erosion of democracy, freedom, liberty and even economic choices. While,
conceding that world was never a perfect place, many expressed apprehension over
growing might of non-democracies in the world and parochialism within their own
societies, which together could cripple freedom of thought, expression,
innovation and even overall progress besides undermining quality of all round
security. Erosion of democracy at home and economic strength of democracies in
a globalised world could negatively impact both the quality of freedom and
choices. One academic (not naming him as I don’t have his permission) was
emphatic that dictators with unfettered powers and absolute belief in their
individual wisdom create an army of cronies who have the same illusion about
themselves, except when dealing with their own superiors. Such people can
create havoc in the rest of the world if their state wielded far too much of power.
When we talk of identity politics, and that too of
a confrontational type, probably there would be few parallels than what we can
visualise in the Indian sub-continent. These substantially vary in India,
Pakistan and other South Asian countries depending upon the basic character of
these societies and states. In secular and multi-cultural India, identity-politics
has always been there but fairly subdued. Even these should not be tolerable
given the original character of Indian civilization and outlook of modern
Indian democracy. The partition of India must have been one of the most
horrific episodes in the entire history of mankind driven by hatred for
identity of large majority of non-Muslims in the sub-continent. Almost entire minority
Hindu and Sikh population from newly created nation of Pakistan was either
exterminated or forced out. In 1951, India had a registered number of over 14.5
million refugees from Pakistan, with actual numbers estimated to be much higher
and reported deaths of over one million or more, mostly on the Western side of
Pakistan. There were casualties, even though in few thousands of Muslims even on
Indian side with total migration of nearly 0.65 million Muslims from North India
to Pakistan, which too were certainly not acceptable for a secular India.
However, steadfast commitment of India’s founding fathers to their secular
vision of the nation and a particularly powerful Home Minister in Sardar Patel
ensured that Muslims in India remained safe.
I remember during my younger days, one senior
Muslim politician telling during a private discussion that how much conviction
and strength the founding fathers of modern India- both Hindus and Muslims by
identity- had displayed in secularism that they did not waver even in face of people
coming in large hordes with most brutal and
vulgar tales of mass massacre, loot,
arson and violation of their women from what constituted Pakistan. It was
equally brave on part of Indian Muslim leaders to avoid temptation of surrendering
to identity driven hysteria at that time. Ironically, despite horrendous
experience of partition and rejection of two-nation theory, identity of a different
kind – in the form of Caste - did seep
in to Indian politics. Caste has been discovered as the most potent tool for political mobilization during elections.
Experience with history suggests that identity is
integral to one’s existence and it is a highly emotive issue that defies any
logic or rationale. Most people are least likely to compromise on it and even a
perceived affront to one’s identity has potential to be interpreted as a
personal attack. It can unify, substantial, if not most, members of a community
or group. With sustained effort and under certain circumstances, it can be
potentially used to generate even a mass hysteria that can be destructive not
only for democracy but entire society. Most of the terror movements and organisations,
varying from Zealots and Sicarii to Hashishins (Assassins) to modern day
radical groups have been driven by aggravated levels of identity consciousness.
Democracies have been the best possible form of
government to optimize pottential and output of any society or state. The under -performance or crisis of democracy stems more from its
distortion rather than its so-called inherent
flaws. When elections or political campaigns become tools of verbal and
psychological war between contentious group identities, governance gets down to
lower priority. Exploitation of contentious identities not only fractures the
idea of “people” as an indivisible entity in a democracy but also destroys
social cohesion and integrity, without which no society can progress. A house
divided is certain to fall. In evolving democracies, it retards the very
process of institution building. Elections
are certainly not a war where rival groups have to capture power as a booty for themselves. Political groups and persnnalities are more obliged to offer their services to undertake responsibility of governance
in the larger interest of people, society and state without undermining their
indivisible identity. Impartiality of
governance processes with a degree of empathy towards the people as a whole are
the biggest strength of representative democracy. It becomes a casualty in a
fractured society marked by aggressive parochialism.
Hence, debate on democracy has to focus on both integrity and efficiency governance
structures and processes which require harmonious societies where religious,
ethnic or linguistic identity of citizens have no relevance. Democracy in the West has been saturating and
India has the opportunity to demonstrate both strength of its civilizational
heritage and vibrance of its inherently multi-cultural and liberal identity evolved over the centuries or even millennia. This will be possible not by preaching but by performance as a society,
economy and state. We need to build a culture of excellence that extends to all institutions cutting across all barriers whether these are government sector or private sector or media or NGOs or even University and reserch instituttions or health sector. We certainly require a culture of genuine or great leadership
at every level and in every sphere.
