Corona as catalyst: Social competition

Five centuries of western domination are currently being replaced by a new world order. All the political, economic, military, cultural and ideological cards are already being reshuffled. If the Corona virus rages deep enough, it will ‘only’ catalyze this transition. In this essay, I try to briefly describe three of these major intersections in our time. Part 3: Social competition / Part 1. Ideological / Part 2. ‘Glocal’

The third question, begging for attention in this transition time and even more so in our corona time, is the tremendous difference in vulnerability between people in one society. I don’t mean here the increased vulnerability of elderly people, but the vulnerability of people lacking opportunities and securities.

In the past years many have pointed to the growing inequality in the world, particularly in ‘undercover oligarchies’ like China, Russia, India, Brazil and the US. Europe, Canada and Australia are in a better shape because of a more extensive welfare system, a stronger social dialogue, and a levelling tax system. But also in these parts of the world we see a growing vulnerability in society as a result of people not being able to escape their inadequate circumstances. And also in these countries, this can be the result of mechanisms that make people lack even the opportunity to flourish.

Consider the growing number of self-employed workers and flex workers who struggle due to temporary jobs, low incomes, little social security and no political voice. In 2011, Guy Standing wrote a book about this group with the title The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. (Precariat is a combination of ‘precarious’ en ‘proletariat’.) Standing warns that chronic vulnerability makes people prone to populism and extremism.

In The Meritocracy Trap (2019), Daniel Markovits describes how a group of American citizens, who first benefitted from a meritocratic society to climb the social ladder, is now forming a closed caste at the top that is hardly accessible for outsiders. The result is a split society with on the one hand an elite that, from an early age on, prepares itself for top positions with top salaries and top responsibilities, and on the other hand a ‘precariat’ that lacks the means to keep up with the elite and is therefore condemned to insecure implementation work. For those who wish to know what this looks like, Markovits refers to the world’s largest taxi company Uber: at the top a small group of privileged and very rich designers and managers, at the bottom millions of underpaid and overworked drivers who will never be able to work themselves up to the level of the first group.

Also in Europe, Australia and Canada, although not as dramatic as in the US, social mobility is dropping rapidly and many are only one accident away from big financial trouble. And we don’t even know yet, how automation, robotics and digitalisation will disrupt the global labour market in the years to come. With new urgency we are confronted with an old question: how to avoid social disruption because of structural inequality?

Now look at the pandemic the world is facing, in the midst of this social competition. The good news is that we suddenly have an eye for people who were so easily overlooked in the past: all the people whose essential work keeps the heart of society running. At the same time, our world is facing a solidarity test with hardly any precedent in history.

I don’t need to describe the misery as a result of the many lockdowns in the world. For millions of owners, losing their business means the end of a life dream and sleepless nights over every layoff. For 60% of US citizens, no work means no health insurance. For millions of factory workers, no global trade means no living. For millions of labour migrants, no income abroad means no family support at home. And for millions of day labourers, no work for a day means no food for a day.

With fear and trembling the world awaits the social and economic damage when the dust of corona settles. Yet one thing is clear already: people who have nothing to lose are prone to extreme ‘solutions’: to communist revolutions, ethnic cleansing, fascist nationalism, scapegoating and sectarian violence. We saw it a century ago, and again these are real threats.

Anger can easily shape these threats, for nothing angers humans more than a lack of recognition. What we cannot afford in times of growing uncertainty is people also feeling humiliated by ending not only economically but also socially (in terms of appreciation and respect) at the bottom of society. If we want to avoid the anger this causes, we need to ask ourselves with new urgency: how to secure each person’s self-esteem and dignity?

In many countries this will provoke another question, namely what is more important to us: the income someone generates, or someone’s contribution to keeping society running? As long as we stress the first, society will continue to be divided into ‘workers’ and ‘volunteers’, with the last group feeling easily that they are somehow falling short. If we stress the second, we will be able to appreciate anyone for anything that contributes to the common good: not only the police officer, the accountant or the nurse, but also the family care giver, the church elder or the baby-sitting granny.

Such a generous appreciation might not be easy. It may be tempting to think that all this ‘volunteer work’ is still made possible by those with ‘a decent job’. In order to fully appreciate ‘unpaid work’, we may need to calculate its economic value (for example the costs that are saved on the health care system thanks to the dedication of family caregivers). The next question will be, how much value we want to attach to the different contributions in society, and to what extent we want to ensure all contributions are somehow financially ‘recognised and appreciated’.

Hopefully, corona is encouraging us to be less fascinated by CEO’s and financial traders and more impressed by the silent forces and forgotten callings that we are surrounded by. In times like these, when unemployment is skyrocketing and the already vulnerable are being hit the hardest, we cannot afford to lose sight of what everyone can still contribute to the common good – in whatever valuable way. For people do not only want to be loved, they also want to be needed. More than charity, we need a solidarity that takes the shape of a commitment to acknowledge and include each and everyone’s qualities.

These are no optional exercises. The solidarity test that we face will in many cases turn out to be a matter of anger prevention. And what applies to societies, is just as relevant at the international level: how to avoid that entire nations have nothing to lose and become prone to extreme ‘solutions’?

The answer to this last question requires no less than a world vision. Time to rise above the election rhetoric of four-year plans and reflect on what we want our nations and world to look like in 2030, 2040, 2050, and what investments this requires today. Climate change is already forcing us to think this way, but there are many other areas (mentioned above) in which we have no choice but to chase a joint vision. Jeffrey Sachs writes in Common Wealth (2008): “The defining challenge of the 21st century will be to face the reality that humanity shares a common fate on a crowded planet.” That is the way things are. And time is short. Corona catalyses what is moving already.

Part 1. Ideological / Part 2. ‘Glocal’ / BACK TO BLOGS

Corona as catalyst: ‘Glocal’ competition

Five centuries of western domination are currently being replaced by a new world order. All the political, economic, military, cultural and ideological cards are already being reshuffled. If the Corona virus rages deep enough, it will ‘only’ catalyze this transition. In this essay, I try to briefly describe three of these major intersections in our time. Part 2: ‘Glocal’ competition / Part 1. Ideological / Part 3. Social

The world is in transition, insisting first of all on ideological reflection within societies. Let us now consider this transition from an international point of view, for there is a second issue that was already on our plate but is now becoming more pressing: how important is national self-determination in a world that gets more and more intertwined and faces more and more threats that require international coordination?

Globalisation is not exactly new. As far as we remember, people get further and further away from home, in search of new opportunities. The result is a succession of winners and losers in history: those who benefit from other nations and those who don’t. Winners gain from free movement of people, goods and services; losers prefer to shut their borders. In the past centuries the West was on the winning side, eagerly calling on their right to free trade when selling — just an example — opium to the Chinese. In our days we see the Chinese, Indians, Poles and Mexicans seizing the opportunities of free movement, and now it is the richest part of the West who responds with America First (Trump), We Want Our Country Back (UKIP) and The Netherlands Is Ours (Party for Freedom).

Behind this nostalgic nationalism and ironic protectionism lies a double motive: loss of western control makes people feel threatened not only economically but also culturally.  Chinese and Russians buy western companies and football clubs; western mosques and Islamic schools are being financed with Turkish and Arabian money. Add to this the alleged islamification of Europe, and in the Netherlands the fight over Black Pete, and for some it is clear that not only western economy but also western culture needs to be defended fiercely.

In the meantime, something else is going on, something without precedent in history: never before did the whole world need to work together to get the whole planet in shape. All nations face the same climate change, nuclear risks, scarcity of water and raw materials, cyber threats, refugee movements, human trafficking, et cetera. Each of these issues requires international coordination to be dealt with in an effective way. No hacker, tsunami or human trafficker, no radioactive water leaking from a nuclear power plant, cares about national borders, trade balances or cultural heritage. In all of these cases, nationalism can only fail.

Now look at the pandemic the world is facing, in the midst of this ‘glocal’ competition. Another planetary issue is binding the nations, precisely when nationalism is on the rise. To which side will the scale tip: to international collaboration or national self-sufficiency? At the moment we see both: each country fighting the same virus as if the rest of the planet (or the EU) does not exist, and scientists working together across the globe to develop a vaccine.

The latter reveals a significant fact, something that shaped the course of Europe’s history but is easily forgotten in nationalist times: science and technology are no local affairs, but determine the fate of all humankind. Countries who shield their science and technology from other countries, may save a patent or two, but will lose the global potential of brainpower, knowledge and innovation.

What, then, to think of the economy? Will corona drive our economies away from each other or towards each other? Here, we can learn an important lesson from history. During World War I, it became painfully clear how vulnerable countries can get when global trade comes to a stop. Several countries faced a dire shortage of food, leading, for example, to a national revolt in the Netherlands. After the war, many countries tried to learn their lesson by aiming for economic self-sufficiency (autarky). This led, however, to winners and losers. Some countries were doing much better in taking care of themselves than others. After a couple of decades, three proud nations who got stuck in their own autarky policy and believed they deserved more land, resources and colonies, started World War II.

Today, we witness again the vulnerability of a globalised world. First physically, then economically. Lack of global trade is leading again to serious shortages, and again it can be tempting for (especially western) politicians to advocate for economic self-sufficiency. In some cases this will make a lot of sense, like with medical equipment and medicines or to reduce CO2 emissions. But also this new self-sufficiency will lead to winners and losers. Famines and civil wars may be the result of other countries closing their factories. And (not as dramatic but relevant for export countries): less import from a country can easily lead to less export to that country.

Another issue has moved up the agenda: when is it appropriate for a nation to defend its self-interests, and when will it only shoot itself in the foot if it does not invest in good relationships and generous collaboration with other nations?

The West is losing control in the world and especially the United States and Great-Britain suffer from a ‘post-imperial stress disorder’. De world is not serving the interests of the West (so much) anymore and quite some politicians take it as a an encouragement for unfettered national self-protection. Corona can enhance this tendency, but the more self-absorbed the West becomes, the more China (and soon India) will fill the international leadership vacuum. Not only because it greatly benefits from international business partners, but also because a number of planetary issues (mentioned above) still call for international coordination. In all these cases, countries will only have it their way if they are able to mobilise sufficient allies when it gets to a vote. China is well aware of this and continues to invest in good relationships, also (and precisely) in corona time. The West is busy with further breaking down its old alliances. Corona makes us realise how much all nations are joined in one fate on a single planet. As westerners we used to have beautiful thoughts on this. Let us hope it will not take too long before we can explain to ourselves again, why we cherished liberty, equality and fraternity as universal values – not for one particular privileged nation, but for all of humankind.

Part 1. Ideological / Part 3. Social / BACK TO BLOGS

Pleasing and uniting Left and Right

The growing gap between Left and Right in politics is plain for all to see. It provoked the following thoughts , with a special focus on western societies. Don’t take them too seriously, or too lightly.

If you want to please the Right, tell them that:

  • climate change isn’t man-made,
    and it will save them reconsidering their life style;
  • migrants undermine our job security,
    and it will save them expressing some solidarity;
  • Islam is a threat to society,
    and it will save them investing in appreciating Muslim citizens;
  • the West needs protection from the rest,
    and it will save them fixing its flaws.

If you want to please the Left, tell them that:

  • capitalism is evil,
    and they will feel good about consuming without a peace of mind;
  • we are facing catastrophe,
    and it will give them a purpose in life that makes them thrive;
  • we need to stand up for the poor and oppressed,
    and they will ignore any progress to not ruin their anger;
  • it’s all about speaking against injustice,
    and they will love their own clarity of right and wrong.

In short:
Want to please the Right? Ease their conscience.
Want to please the Left? Stir their conscience.

False clarity

  • The Right sees in any Muslim a potential terrorist, in any migrant a potential criminal, in any call for tolerance or equality a conspiracy of Cultural Marxists.
  • The Left sees in any Muslim a victim of Islamophobia, in any migrant a victim of oppression, in any free market defense an exploitation of the weak.
  • In short: the Right sees too many perpetrators, the Left too many victims. It gives the Right a continuous right to protect, the Left a continuous right to accuse.

Both wings cannot stand the temptation of making the world look clearer than it is. For the Right, everything looks like a threat that requires self-defense. For the Left, everything looks like injustice that requires solidarity with the oppressed. The latter sounds more noble than the first, and so the Left doesn’t hesitate taking the moral high ground in debates. The Right, on the other hand, accuses the ‘multicultural’ and ‘egalitarian’ Left of destroying ‘Western’ (if not ‘Christian’) values and traditions. And so, Left and Right feel morally empowered to fight each other in a never-ending trench war.

How to combine the positives in both

Without pretending that this trench war can be ended easily, here are a couple of ways in which Left and Right can move towards more unity:

  • The Left needs a deeper recognition of western achievements, if it wants to connect with the protecting attitude of the Right.
  • The Right needs a deeper recognition of western flaws, if it wants to connect with the correcting attitude of the Left.
  • The Left needs more celebration and self-criticism. It is so obsessed with fighting injustice, that there is hardly space for celebrating past achievements and recognizing the limitations of their own understanding.
  • The Right needs more compassion and solidarity. It is so obsessed with self-protection, that there is hardly space for seeking the well-being of other nations and the entire planet.

Sounds all good ‘on paper’, these recipes for unity, but profound mentality shifts are usually not a matter of the will but of necessity, of circumstances that demand a radically different response. Let’s hope that Left and Right will read the ‘signs of the times’ in time and need only ‘mild’ circumstances to acknowledge the necessity of overcoming their differences and pursuing a united and sustainable way forward.

BACK TO BLOGS

The irresistible features of Western populism

What characterizes Western populism ? Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics at the University of Kent, gives the following answer:

In the aggregate, national populists oppose or reject liberal globalisation, mass immigration and the consensus politics of recent times. They promise instead to give voice to those who feel that they have been neglected, if not held in contempt, by increasingly distant elites.

Given the rise of populism in the West, what is so attractive about this opposition to liberal globalization, mass immigration and consensus politics? Some very basic human needs. And although one would expect every politician to address these needs, populists somehow manage to be more convincing to a growing group of people. Here they are:

  1. Populists tackle people’s cultural need to come home somewhere.
    • Populists show that they realize that unlimited globalization leads to homelessness. A world that only facilitates free movements of people and ideas across the globe, makes people feel lost in their own country, city or street. ‘The world’ is too big and too diverse to provide a local neighborhood that feels safe and familiar. To feel at home somewhere, we need to understand the language of our neighbors, appreciate a common set of customs and attitudes, and share some basic values and convictions. Without these, a society becomes socially disintegrated and culturally perplexed.
  2. Populists tackle people’s social need to be seen and economic need to be protected.
    • Populists show that they realize that people on the losing end of globalization, automation and robotics cannot keep hearing that these changes are unavoidable. They need politicians who can make them feel that they actually care about the ‘forgotten ones’ in society, and are willing to take an uncompromising stand in protecting their well-being.
  3. Populists tackle people’s political need for clarity and leadership.
    • Populists show that they realize that people who are not trained to deal with complex issues can feel more and more lost in a world that gets more and more complicated. This group is not waiting for academic reflections on the uncertainty and ambiguity of things, but for a clear description of both the problem and the solution, and robust leadership when it comes to pursuing this solution.

So, here is the good news about Western populism: it raises awareness of some basic human needs that are currently insufficiently addressed, forcing other politicians to respond as well. The solutions that populists promote, are, however, not without a price:

  1. Populists promote nationalism at the cost of global collaboration.
    • Protecting national cultures and economies won’t solve issues that still require international collaboration (cyber crime, nuclear risks, pandemics, international crime, global terrorism, climate change, etc.) It also won’t stop the dependency of countries on international trade. Somehow, the ‘art of the deal’ lies in combining all three: securing people’s cultural homes and securing international trade and securing the planet’s future. A juggle as difficult as it is unavoidable.
  2. Populists provoke disappointment by over-shouting themselves.
    • In their effort to respond to people’s need for clarity and leadership, it is tempting for populists to bring a lot of misery in society back to one enemy or cause. Build a wall, leave the EU, stop the immigrants, fight Islam, and most will be well. This simplicity won’t last. One day, reality will reveal the true complexity of things – and who will people then believe? Somehow, the ‘art of the deal’ lies in offering a clear vision to people who deal with uncertainties, a vision that secures people’s well-being and keeps everyone participating, but without hiding unavoidable costs and difficulties.

Here are 2 lessons for Western politics we can draw from the above:

  1. Don’t make people choose between nationalism or globalism, but invest in both a cultural home and collaboration across borders.
  2. Don’t make people choose between compelling simplicity or realistic complexity, but invest in the clarity and leadership that is required to keep everyone on board in a transitioning society.

This last point I will pick up in a later blog.

BACK TO BLOGS