Danger in the rise of nationalism
In my Observer article appearing on Christmas Day last year I sought to explain the causes of the current backlash against the forces of globalisation and some of its possible consequences.
I pointed out that nationalism is an emergent global political phenomenon and identified its strains in seemingly disparate developments including the rise of ISIS and the electoral triumph of Donald Trump.
I stated that some of the institutions and structures designed to constrain the more deleterious aspects of nationalism are unravelling.
The article sparked quite a vigorous debate on Disqus and elsewhere. I intend to use this piece today to qualify and expand on some of the points I raised in that article and to respond to some of the comments it prompted.
The decision of the United Kingdom to vote for secession from the European Union and the American election of Donald Trump have provided clear evidence that the forces of nationalism are definitely in the ascendancy in places once considered bastions of international multilateral engagements.
It should be noted that the process of transnational integration guaranteed almost a century of peace among European nations. Europe waged two major wars in less than 50 years during the first half of the last century with the resultant loss of life numbering in the multiple of millions.
Most European nations — including Russia — supported the idea of having Germany deeply integrated in a transnational political architecture as a condition for the reunification of its then divided territory and a measure to forestall the recurrence of another major war in Europe.
Sadly the Russians no longer seem to be sanguine about the prospect of such an arrangement. According to news reports, Russia seems to be in favour of the dismemberment of the European Union and has been providing financial and political support for nationalist movements across the continent.
The rapid expansion of the European Union and NATO, which has seen the absorption of a number of former Warsaw Pact nations into western military and political alliances, has prompted fears of encirclement in Russia. The aggressive Russian response to political developments in the Ukraine is a reflection of the anxiety which this encirclement has caused.
The nationalist Marine Le Pen could become the president of France in the soon-to-be-held elections. The polls show she is likely to win the first round of voting, though most are still hopeful that she will not prevail in a second phase. The prospect of her winning would have been inconceivable even a few years ago. The implications of her being victorious could be a staggering blow to the idea of a European Union.
One of the staunchest supporters of the European Union, Angela Merkel, is facing surprisingly stiff competition from those to the right of her in Germany. While many still believe that Mrs Merkel will prevail, the experts are not too sanguine about the outcome, given that they got it wrong on both Trump and Brexit.
We in the Caribbean should not believe that our region is devoid of nationalistic sentiments. While the strains of nationalism might seem less virulent in the Caribbean than in other parts of the world, it is still evident in a number of territories in different measure across the region.
The decision of the Dominican Republic to revoke the citizenship of their own nationals of Haitian descent and the increasing anti-immigrant and protectionist postures among Caribbean territories is indicative of a rise in nationalistic sentiments.
Those who are younger and better educated and have been able to extract greater benefits from the emergence of globalisation are on one side of the political divide, while those who are older, more rural and less disposed to training stand in opposition.
In this nationalistic construct foreigners — whether at home or abroad — are treated with contempt. Those at home are often seen to be adulterating racial or ethnic purity and unfairly extracting social benefits, while those abroad are seen as cheap labourers pilfering jobs which rightfully belong to people beyond their shores.
It should be noted that foreigners are those who pray to strange gods, practise unfathomable rituals and don attire deemed curious. In times of economic malaise people tend to turn inwards, thus making those they deem as outsiders vulnerable to abuse and discrimination.
The fact though is that most jobs are being lost to technological advancements. I recently pointed out to my friend and business associate Leahcim Semaj that there will soon come a time when the rich will have very little need for the poor, save for their being consumers of the goods and services which will be produced largely by machines and artificial intelligence owned by the wealthy.
This will lead to a rather interesting scenario since, without an income the poor will not be able to purchase the goods and services produced by the rich. Which will lead to economic stagnation and the eventual impoverishment of the rich. The answer to that puzzle is a guaranteed income of which Leahcim and I are strong supporters.
Yet providing a guaranteed income is predicated on the notion that citizens are willing to pay taxes to support such an arrangement. Increasingly the mood of those who are most able to pay favours tax cuts and other supposed deficit reduction measures which will certainly challenge the State in any effort to provide more by way of subsidies, especially to the poor.
Trading is already becoming a casualty of the current nationalistic posture. Protectionism could soon become the international norm. Some countries will certainly be better able to withstand the shocks of reduced trade than their export-dependent counterparts, given the configuration of their economy. A contraction in trade will be less harmful to the American economy, which is more reliant on internal consumer spending for growth than the Chinese — which is still largely export-driven.
What is interesting is that the strong anti-immigration sentiments are emerging at a time when the birth rate is on the decline in a number of major economies across the world. Many nations, including the almost hormogeneous Japan, will have to encourage massive immigration if their economies are to not experience stagnation as a declining number of the young will have to support a growing cohort of the old. Ironically, this is triggering fears, in places like France, that immigrants — with their higher birth rates — will soon be in the majority.
Finding political solutions in the current polarised environment will be difficult, if not impossible. We seem less disposed to compromise than we have ever been in modern history and our experts and authority figures have been more discredited (many times without justification) than at any other time in modern civilisation.
Globalisation, with all its flaws, brought tangible benefits to many societies both rich and poor. However, insensitivity to the concerns of those who have been left behind in its wake has fed a growing resistance to its development. The fear now is that many of those who are left behind are no longer willing to accommodate tweaks to the system. To them, total destruction is the only solution.
— cpamckenzie@gmail.com
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb914/bb91497ff6088b0c1a3f9d75e7f856c4b409fd30" alt=""