In a world that we live in today, balance of interests has become a distant dream, even in the best of the democracies. It is more because we are increasingly polarised, be it politically, socially, culturally or according to religious faith.
The problem lies not in the polarisation of political thoughts, social ideologies, cultural practices or faith of religion but in the extreme manifestations of those that lead to sociopolitical unrest and intolerance. It is neither possible nor expected for all to have a similar way of thinking or have faith or belief, but it is essential and imperative to have respect for those differences and to have a common ground of convergence in greater interest of the society at large.
It is at the threshold of polarisation that democratic values begin to shrink. Going by example, US President Donald Trump has an umpteen number of times expressed that ‘people who wear facemasks are getting infected with coronavirus all the time’ and he has said so without any shred of evidence suggesting anything as such.
He even shunned masks and many of his supporters ranted, ‘mandating masks infringed on their rights’. This has in fact taken insanity to the next level when people begin to side with their leader or icon to the extent of a suicidal decision.
Interestingly, Trump, who for months had resisted putting masks, tweeted, “It is patriotic to wear a facemask when you can’t socially distance.” And his blind supporters didn’t even question it; this is actually epic hypocrisy.
In the Indian context, Prime Minister Modi urged the nation, “On March 22, at 5 pm stand on your doors and windows for 5 minutes and clap, ring a bell to salute people who are serving the nation tirelessly.” And in an exceptional and rare instance of social bonhomie, balconies and verandahs across Indian cities resonated with the beating of Thalis (steel plates) sharp at 5 pm on Sunday in the honour of Covid warriors.
But what is disheartening is that it turned into a national celebration with people coming out of their houses in full force to express their gratitude for essential service providers by blowing conch shells, bursting firecrackers, banging of brass and steel plates while some screamed “go corona, go”. This is yet another instance of inexcusable madness and something like being more loyal than the king when the basic tenet of social distancing, which is integral in the fight against coronavirus, was blatantly disregarded, which created a glaring example of how dangerous polarisation could be.Polarisation has disturbingly pervaded into mass media or Press itself, which has been a subject of massive criticism also.
It is disturbing when some channels and newspapers get identified with particular political philosophies and feature shouting matches, public naming and shaming and run disparaging and scurrilous propaganda against individuals and entities of opposite political philosophies to the extent that those who democratically disagree from their lines of argument are named as anti-nationals and are misbehaved, not allowed to answer a question.
Who gave them this right to abuse, in the name of Press freedom? This is actually disturbing when the Press is biased and adds to undemocratic polarisation, which sounds the death knell of free and fair journalism or unbiased reporting. Polarisation of media or opinionated reporting, containing religious overtones has actually torn into the very vitals of ethical reporting and blatant attempts are being made to quell communal tensions.
As political and societal polarisation intensifies, the relationship between democracy and polarisation is unraveled as: (i) polarisation contributes to democratic backsliding and erosion of democratic values; (ii) polarisation contributes to deepening of differences without mutual respect for each other. In the words of A Przeworski and JD Sprague, reflected in their work ‘Paper stones: A history of electoral socialism’ (1986) published by the University of Chicago Press, “Democracy is a system of governance for managing competing interests in a society in a peaceful way (where majoritarian mechanisms, e.g., elections, are one of the main instruments), following ‘agreed-on’ rules of contingent consent.” This is an important definition of democracy, crucial to understanding the impact of polarisation.
On the other hand, J McCoy, T Rahman and M Somer have proposed to define polarisation in their work, ‘Polarisation and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics and pernicious consequences for democratic polities’ (2018) as “a process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in a society increasingly align along a single dimension; crosscutting differences become reinforcing; and people increasingly perceive and describe politics and society in terms of ‘us’ versus ‘them’.”
And this is something (the process of polarisation), which makes the management of ‘competing interests’ in a democracy, a ‘complete failure’, by adhering to majoritarian alignments however unjust they might be. It blindfolds the masses and converts them into herds pledging allegiance to a particular regime or outfit without scant regards for the spirit of enquiry and rationality.
In this context, it is worth quoting the views of Rhodes and M Purdy on the impact of polarisation in their work, ‘Regime support beyond the balance sheet: Participation and policy performance in Latin America’ (2017) published by the Cambridge University Press.
They have opined, “What makes it possible that many ‘electoral-authoritarian regimes’ manage to maintain their support base even when they ‘routinely fail’ to provide desired goods and services.”
The fact remains such a model of polarisation that unfairly rises above reason and common national objective and helps a ‘regime that has failed in the delivery and governance front’ to ‘survive’, which is a trend being observed internationally cutting across borders.Polarisation has a potentially-pernicious dynamics and its ramifications include severe political and societal groupism with a trait of self-propagation, which eventually spirals out of control.
And in such cases, it so happens that in an attempt to defend ‘democracy’ against the ‘undemocratic others’, actions are undertaken and discourses are made, which culminates into undermining democracy and advancing authoritarianism.
Therefore, it is time we weighed every ‘rhetoric’ against ‘truth’ while pressing the ballot button or developing a perspective in the face of ‘what all is shown to us’, which may include propaganda and untruth disguised as news or social media forwards. Let us nip in bud every attempt towards ‘polarisation’.
(The writer is a legal and public policy expert and a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law & Media Studies at School of Mass Communication, KIIT University. He can be reached at sjyotiranjan3@gmail.com.)