As a rule, politicians have learnt to develop thick skins. They can endure taunts, abuses and even outright slander much more successfully than most people who shun public life. However, there is one exception to this rule. In democratic countries where it is obligatory to be mandated by a popular vote, politicians hate being called ‘heartless.’
This is perfectly understandable. Since politics involves, among other things, the desire to embrace goodness and, by extension, compassion, it does not suit politicians to be seen to lack the human touch. The only exception is during war when the milk of human kindness cannot be seen to flow into the camp of the enemy.
There is, however, a paradox. History records that the political leaders most remembered after their retirement or death are those who also have a reputation for no-nonsense conduct. They may or may not be very good at kissing babies or engaging with precocious kids but their track record of firmness lives on in history. All opinion polls, for example, have shown that among the Prime Ministers Indians admire the most, Indira Gandhi leads the pack. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister India’s intellectual elite has equated with the ‘idea of India’ will probably rank a poor third, after Atal Behari Vajpayee, the epitome of good-natured geniality.
In her lifetime, particularly during the Emergency, Indira was often (and, quite justifiably) accused of harbouring a cruel streak in her character. But posterity appears to have forgiven the cruel way she dealt with her political opponents. What has stuck in the popular imagination is her steely determination that was on display during the Bangladesh war. It is given far more importance than Nehru’s alleged fondness for children, his establishment of the “temples of modern India” and his agonised attempts to come to terms with the soul of India. No non-Congress government will, for example, try and mess with something named after Indira Gandhi. With the Nehru inheritance, however, it is a different story altogether.
The reason for invoking the mixed legacy of ‘heartlessness’ is obvious. During the past week, confronted with a wave of media-generated sentimentalism over the wave of refugees from Syria, important European leaders — particularly those identified with the Right-wing of politics — have done remarkable U-turns. After almost threatening to unilaterally close her country’s borders and junk the notion of a seamless Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has declared that Germany will give sanctuary (leading inevitably to permanent rights of residence) to all those who manage to reach its borders. In Britain, a country where immigration is a volatile political issue, Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated his willingness to take in some 20,000 Syrian refugees.
To some extent this sudden burst of generosity — which has helped Germany in particular to assume moral leadership of Europe, after a bout of bad publicity over a display of economic ‘heartlessness’ over Greece — was born of calculation. Germany needs foreign workers to maintain its edge in manufacturing and a very large chunk of those fleeing the pincer onslaught of the Assad regime and the Islamic State (ISIS) probably have the ability to adjust to the demands of the European labour market. Judging from their clothes, their mobile phones and the hefty sums they paid to the ‘agents’ to facilitate their arrival in Europe from Turkey, they can even be described as being on the margins of the middle class.
More to the point, by opening Germany’s doors to the Syrians, Merkel has re-established her position as the de-facto head of the European Union. Countries such as Hungary, Austria, France and Serbia, both unable and unwilling to confront the problem effectively are probably ecstatic that Germany has salvaged Europe’s conscience and even paid its dues for the havoc caused by Hitler some six decades ago. Certainly, the type of Hitlerian imagery that was used against the German Chancellor some months ago, during the financial crisis in Greece, will not make a re-appearance in the short term. I suspect that Merkel will probably emerge as a likely candidate to win the next Nobel Prize for Peace.
The question that will, however, remain tantalisingly unanswered is: how will Germany exercise its new moral authorityIJ It is difficult to answer this question for the very simple reason that Germany was actually pushed into accepting the Syrian refugees by the sheer weight of the media campaign that followed the tragic death of the 2-year-old Aylan Kurdi. The calculations based on economics and European policy were, in reality, post-facto rationalisations of a decision that was literally forced upon Germany — and in a more limited way, upon Britain — by a campaign in the media.
Such was the intensity of the campaign that even in Israel, a country that looks upon the Syrian turbulence with enormous trepidation, the Opposition labour Party leader demanded that the country do its bit to tackle a larger humanitarian crisis. Of course that campaign got nowhere — apart from the pages of the ultra-liberal Haaretz newspaper — because Israel has no intention of either importing a problem or unsettling its religious demography. But the mere fact that the demand was made is indicative. It suggests that Europe as a whole is unsure of whether it should be a power (in the conventional sense) or a lifestyle. The inclination to be the latter certainly drives the media — as it does in India — but is at odds with a silent majority that is uneasy with its failure to fully integrate a large number of earlier Muslim immigrants into the national mainstream. Those who fled the tyrants may want nothing more to do with Islamists of any description, but will their children see things that way after tasting the better life in the WestIJ
These are troubling questions but it is not for nothing that posterity has often shown its admiration for those who have stood firm against momentary dust storms. Appeasement was the rage of the season in the late-1930s because Europe didn’t want to be dragged into another war. In this decade of the 21st century, the humanitarian response is the easy way out of acknowledging the roots of the turbulence. Avoiding uncomfortable answers may be the way of media management but what about ISISIJ