By Taha Ali
Why Liberalism Failed is a slim volume by Patrick J. Deenen, a Catholic and professor of political science at Notre Dame University. He has written a handful of books on the evolving state of liberal democracy, much in the tradition of political scientist extraordinaire Alexis de Tocqueville. This particular contribution may well end up being his masterwork.
e book is a dense and challenging read, but the thesis itself is fairly simple: we see that liberalism is currently battling crises, several of which seem well nigh insurmountable. But, as per Deenen, these crises are of liberalism’s own making; that is, they derive from certain fundamental contradictions at the very heart of liberal ideology. The house is divided from within, it is falling apart, and this book is an articulate attempt at a post-mortem. One is reminded of the evocative image of the ouroboros — the serpent that devours itself.
First, a quick primer: the modern era has given us three ideologies, two of which — communism and fascism — have died. Liberalism is the undisputed winner to the extent that, like fish in water, we take it for granted. We would struggle to pinpoint its imprints in our everyday lives, it is writ into our very DNA. We forget it is simply an ideology.
Deenen reminds us that all ideologies have two components that determine their success: an anthropology and a plan. Liberalism’s anthropology — its fundamental assumptions about human nature — trace back to the social contract theories of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes. In a fundamental break with tradition, these modern philosophers envisioned man as being ‘born free’ and bearing certain ‘natural rights’, foremost being the fundamental right of self-determination. Man relinquishes some of these rights as the necessary cost of membership in human society, to maintain law and order. The plan of the liberal project is, therefore, a balancing act, focusing on the constant expansion of individual freedom within the social domain.
Towards this end, liberalism relies on three key tools. First, a restricted and effective government to preserve social order; second, the free market economy which sifts winners and losers; and third, modern science and technology which enable the individual to overcome the limitations of brute nature and redefine the world in his image. These three tools act as levers for course correction in society.
This in turn gives rise to two political tendencies within the citizenry: fidelity to the community versus fidelity to the individual — or, in more familiar terms — the left and right. The left relies on government authority to enforce equality of outcome in society. The right depends on the free market to ensure individual liberty, or rather, equality of opportunity. These two ends are fundamentally opposed and it is this inherent tension of left and right, progressivism versus conservatism, which fundamentally advances the liberal project.
A key reason for the phenomenal success of this project is that liberalism incorporates some of the finest traditions of Western and Christian political thought: freedom, human dignity and rational thought. Indeed, when the founding fathers of the United States hit upon this magic formula, they thought they had discovered the holy grail of politics, a perpetual motion device, a self-correcting ideology for all ages and men. It was a heady thought.
So why is everything breaking down around us today?
One rather obvious issue, Deenen points out, is liberalism’s core axiom that humans are autonomous entities and thereby, in a sense, distinct from nature. This assumption lies at the root of our war with nature. Modern science, as posited by Francis Bacon and René Descartes, was the engine that would “make us masters and possessors of nature”, and whereas this attitude most certainly brought unprecedented success and prosperity to liberal society, it is also directly responsible for today’s global ecological crisis which has no parallel in human history.
A second, and far more pernicious, flaw is liberalism’s decidedly cynical view of humanity, a portrait straight out of Machiavelli, where every man is a scoundrel and a pirate. Hobbes describes it best: “I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death.” For the fathers of the liberal project, the best way to tame this savage and depraved humankind was to re-architect society such that greed was pitted against greed and self-interest clashed with self-interest, giving us the system of checks and balances that we have today.
These axioms, we now know well, are no longer tenable. Over the last 50 years, we have learned with absolute utter certainty that we are not apart from nature — to ravage nature is to ravage ourselves, we live and die with it. We are also starting to realise that human greed cannot be contained by mere ideology.
Moreover, over the centuries, as documented by the eminent Max Weber and others, religious values and traditional social structures provided critical support for the ascent of modern society. But at the same time, with its uncompromising focus on individualism and ever-expanding freedom, liberal ideology has undermined tradition to the point that, today, institutions such as marriage, family, community and culture have all but collapsed. And there is no element within liberalism itself to replenish these precious resources. In this sense, liberalism is non-renewable.
The West has tried to address these issues in many ways, most notably by greatly expanding the role of government and promoting a global free market. But left and right solutions will only make things worse, Deenen insists. To keep up this misguided approach will result in a paradoxical state where “extreme licence coexists with extreme oppression.”
Hints of an answer may lie in tradition. Deneen repeatedly notes how the fundamental definition of liberty was reworked for the liberal project. Within liberalism, ‘liberty’ refers to the freedom to do as one pleases within one’s own personal space. That sounds perfectly nice and reasonable, but in such a world, as Aleksandr Solzheitsyn laments, “Voluntary self-restraint is almost unheard of: everyone strives toward further expansion to the extreme limit of legal frames.”
The traditional notion of liberty, however, dating back to the ancient Greeks, was liberation from one’s own baser instincts. We find the echo of this over the centuries, most recently in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who based his critique of modern civilisation on the glaring disconnect between personal morality and social emancipation. Gandhi would sometimes startle his visitors with the rhetorical question: what good is swaraj [self-rule] if one is still a slave to one’s own base self?
However, the reader must be warned that this is not an easy book. Deenen’s easy and conversational style is likely to evoke an instinctive reaction among those who subscribe to liberalism’s utopian vision, who believe the big problems of today can be remedied with tweaks and band-aids. Indeed, reviews of this book in mainstream media have been sharply divided along left/right lines. Furthermore, readers with little exposure to doomsayers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Neil Postman and the like will find Deenen’s matter-of-fact attitude disconcerting, especially the way he adapts the conclusions of these writers without taking the trouble to justify them.
However, this frustration is felt most strongly at the end: Deenen has no practical out-of-the-box solution for us. It is clear we need something from outside of liberalism. We need new axioms that make sense in these trying times. We need a way out of the metaphysical black hole of moral relativism. Deenen suggests looking for answers in the lived experience of small communities. People living together in generational harmony can rediscover the real meaning of culture and develop an anthropology for a new ideology, he posits. It is clearly an uphill task.
But first we need to fully diagnose the disease within liberalism itself. We need to confront the demons in the ideology and we need to learn from our mistakes. And on that count, this slim and articulate contribution by Patrick J. Deenen is required reading.
Why Liberalism Failed
By Patrick J. Deenen
Yale University Press, US
Brazen statements on job shortage
By Mihir Swarup Sharma
Back when Narendra Modi was just a candidate for the post of Prime Minister, he seemed to understand what India’s biggest problem was: jobs. He promised tens of millions of jobs would be created if he were voted to power – India’s unemployed young people would be transformed, he promised, into an army for development.
Four years later, this promise has turned into a weapon for the opposition. His predecessor, Manmohan Singh, pointed out last year that young Indians were “desperately waiting for the jobs that they were promised.”
The Modi government’s response has been typical: not harder work, not economic reform, but bluster. Two recent statements from senior ministers who should know better stand out. Piyush Goyal said that the large number of people who are lining up for jobs in the Railways that he oversees – over 15 million applied recently for a minuscule number of vacancies – did not in any way mean that there is a shortage of jobs in India. And Human Resources Minister Prakash Javadekar, whose job is indeed to prepare the Indian workforce for employment, has insisted that each and every sector in India has witnessed job opportunities. “We have to find out why people with post-graduate degrees apply for sweeper jobs in the government,” he said.
Well, minister, the answer is staring us all in the face: that there simply aren’t enough high-quality jobs available. Yes, even low-skilled government jobs provide security; but in a growing economy, the private sector should also be creating enough and better-paid jobs in such a way that security would be rendered irrelevant.
The fact is that when millions of Indians turn up for jobs that they are manifestly overqualified for, it cannot be seen as anything other than a failure of economic management on a massive scale.
There was not even the slightest remorse expressed by the ministers for whatever combination of circumstances may have arisen in the economy to cause this sort of desperation on the part of job-seekers. Nor was there an iota of compassion for these young job-seekers or a comprehension of the lack of choices they face.
Mr Javadekar even said that “people who do not work out of choice cannot be called unemployed”. Is it possible that Modi Sarkar imagines that everyone without employment prefers to watch things on their Jio phone rather than earn a living? It is impossible to overstate how out of touch that sentiment is. Even in the best case scenario, which is that the minister was referring only to the worrying decrease in the labour participation rate of women – fewer women in India are working, while in the test of the world more women worked as development progressed – it still reveals an inability to understand the real problems faced by job-seekers. If women are not going out to work, it is not out of “choice”. It is because neither law and order nor their social relations in their community have allowed them to do so. Is this not something a government should be concerned about – if, that is, it values half of India? Or should it just dismiss the crushing of womens’ aspirations as “their choice”?
The ministers complained that there was not enough data to prove that jobs were not being created. This seems to undercut various other claims made by government apologists that jobs are indeed being created – on the basis of the pension records kept by the provident funds, for example. Many economists have poked clear holes in this theory. At best, that reveals that under pressure from demonetization and the GST, some jobs are coming into the formal sector – but it does not reveal whether or not jobs are being created overall. While it is amusing to discover that not even the Modi government ministers believe its own propagandists, the politicians’ statements are still important. Their complaint about the lack of official data is shared by many.
Yet data is scarce, of course, for a very specific reason: the survey of unemployment in the country, conducted by the Labour Bureau every year from 2010 to 2016, was discontinued by the Union Labour Ministry – in a strange coincidence, the Survey showed sharp job losses after the National Democratic Alliance government came to power in 2014. So when the ministers – and earlier the Prime Minister himself – complain that there is no data on employment, what they should instead explain is why the government chose to stop collecting data on employment.
The reason, of course, is that this government does not want the release of any data that would reveal the true state of the economy. The manipulation of the backseries of GDP data revealed exactly how desperate it is to whitewash its unusually poor record.
The Modi government seems to believe that voters are comically stupid. That they will not only believe that jobs are being created, but also that mobs of people applying for a few government jobs is a sign of how many other jobs there are. That they will also believe that a lack of data that the government has itself organised can be replaced by earnest assurances from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that large numbers of jobs have indeed been created.
The most reliable independent source for jobs data are the reports from the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy, or CMIE. Their latest report, issued earlier this month, indicated that 11 million jobs had been lost in 2018. Think about that – 11 million jobs were lost, not created. This comes at a time when most economists believe that we need to create between 6 and 12 million jobs a year just to keep pace with the number of people entering the job market. Nor were previous years better – demonetization in particular wreaked havoc, costing millions of jobs.
There is little doubt, therefore, that Modi has failed to keep the promises that he made before being elected. The question is whether he will be held accountable for those promises. Perhaps if the Prime Minister or his colleagues had been open about their failures and accepted that they understood where they had gone wrong and how more jobs could be created going forward, they might have been able to retain some credibility. Instead, they have chosen to deny that a problem even exists and to pretend instead that the promises have been fulfilled. This is brazen even by the standards of Indian politics.
There are good reasons for greater urgency. India’s window to create high-quality manufacturing jobs – the sort that helped countries like China move up the income ladder – is closing. More and more processes are being automated, and the scope for mass manufacturing that takes in lower-skilled workers and gives them solid secure employment is narrowing. But the World Bank has insisted in a recent report that there is still enough time. Given its vast numbers of young people, it is India that should be benefiting from these last decades in which manufacturing will matter. But instead the government has failed to undertake genuine economic reform, relying instead on adulatory press handouts and ministerial statements – managing the headlines and not the economy, as Arun Shourie put it. India’s young people, lining up in their lakhs in the hope even of a job as a government sweeper, deserve better than this callous indifference to their fate.
Is Rahul Gandhi emerging as a reliable brand?
By Shuchi Bansal
The Congress’s recent victories in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have put the spotlight on its president Rahul Gandhi.
While an earlier column spoke of brand Modi and whether he has lost some of its sheen, little has been said on Rahul Gandhi and if he, as a brand, has come of age. Or whether, despite his party’s recent wins, it is too early to think of him as a dependable brand.
Interestingly, the resurgence of the Congress and that of Rahul Gandhi in particular seems to represent an almost textbook example of a challenger brand.
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) unexpected poor performance is also perhaps a classic case of what a market leader should avoid—complacence, overconfidence and petty-mindedness being on top of the list.
“While it’s true that Rahul Gandhi has a long way to go before he can match the perceived stature and the personal popularity of Narendra Modi, he has certainly been able to narrow the gap between them. I would say this is an outcome of some of his bold initiatives helped to a great extent by the missteps of the latter,” says Samit Sinha, managing partner, Alchemist Brand Consulting.
Dheeraj Sinha, managing director (India) and chief strategy officer (Asia) at Leo Burnett, agreed that Rahul Gandhi has emerged as a viable challenger with the recent wins in the Assembly elections.
However, he argues that challengers don’t win the game in India, leaders do. “Will Rahul be able to position himself as a viable leader of the country is the question. Just being a challenger won’t make it happen for the Congress,” he says.
Advertising veteran Sandeep Goyal who has done his doctorate in human brands, says that a challenger brand is defined by a mindset. It has ambitions larger than its conventional pool of resources and is prepared to do something bold. The most common narrative associated with the challenger brand is that of the underdog.
However, challenger brands are today more often focused on “what” they are challenging rather than “who” they are challenging.
“Rahul Gandhi is, therefore, by definition, truly a challenger brand. The important thing that everyone seems to be missing out on is that he is cleverly not really challenging Mr Modi but challenging incumbency, unfulfilled promises, growth agenda, and the performance of the current government, ‘mistakes’ like demonetization and GST (goods and service tax). In politics, these are really the ‘category drivers’. Rahul is also focusing on disenchantment/ unhappiness with jobs/economy, which is really challenging the ‘user experience’ with the current government,” says Goyal.
Sinha feels that Rahul’s underdog image helps him. He began his political career as a fumbling novice, which earned him the Pappu sobriquet.
“It’s because not much was expected of him is why his stock goes up every time he exceeds expectations, even for accomplishments that are less than extraordinary. On the other hand, his rival suffers a huge disadvantage for having set unrealistically high expectations, and whatever be his achievements, they are bound to fall short of the promise. This has no doubt negatively impacted both his credibility as well as popularity, which has helped Rahul Gandhi seize the narrative. When one starts at the bottom, the only way is up. The converse is equally true,” points out Sinha.
Brand Rahul seems to be gaining some traction. “His speeches have improved both in form and content. He is more consistent, more combative.
The hesitant, reluctant brand Rahul of yore is slowly but surely transforming into an astute leader who has pedigree and lineage,” feels Goyal.
Of course, none of this guarantees a defeat for the BJP, or a victory for the Congress, in this year’s general elections. Goyal says that as of now, brand Modi is stronger and better resourced, but beginning to fray at the edges.
Also, a bit hurt, if not bruised. In 2014, brand Modi epitomized “hope” and “progress.”
“In 2019, he cannot stand for Hindutva or Ram Temple or The Cow. That would be a big mistake. In 2014, brand Rahul was untested and nascent. In 2019, he is portraying himself as progressive, secular, empathetic and pedigreed… Both brands have their own appeal,” he says.
As Leo Burnett’s Sinha says, leadership brands need to appeal to the whole market.
Will brand Rahul be able to cover this distance from being a challenger brand to the leader brand in the next few months remains to be seen.
Your waste: someone’s taste
By Zeeshan Rasool Khan,
While we every other day listen to boastful claims that the country India is developing fast. It has become very difficult for most of us to accept the brute reality that here the people die because of hunger. Yes, death due to starvation is the unthinkable, reality of India. According to sources, about 14.9% of the Indian population is undernourished. Half of the world’s hungry live in India. Thousands are those who do not know if the next meal would be availed or not. Reports say, everyday 20 crore people have to hit the sack with an empty tummy. In the year 2018, many cases of hunger-death were reported in India. This bitter truth is being cloaked with bragging. Global Hunger Index 2018, which has placed India at a 103rd place out of 119 qualifying countries, is a testimony to this fact that India is not what media shows i.e., all is not well within the nation with respect to common masses. Howbeit, it is not any matter of berating the nation. There is no question of cutting anyone to size in connection with this issue. Instead, it demands serious contemplation from everyone irrespective of our positions in society.
One of the root causes of hunger is poverty that has been challenging to every developing country and India is no exception. Despite the reports of GHI, which says, the poverty level has reduced by 0.9 % since 2011 we must accept that our efforts have been too meagre to achieve any feat in this direction. Let us accept we have failed in defeating poverty. But, that does not mean we will rest on our laurels and let poverty-stricken die. If we cannot eradicate the gigantic issue of poverty but we have immense potential to secure poor. If we cannot build palaces for indigents, however, we can provide them shelter to hide at least. If we cannot raise their standard of living but there is no doubt that, we can mitigate their problems. Likewise, if we cannot provide them with sumptuous food, at least we can make sure that they will not sleep hungry, die due to hunger and starvation.
There is no dearth of food. Credible reports suggest that India produces sufficient food to feed its population. However, access to the available food is lacking. And this inaccessibility is partly due to low income of people and mostly due to our behaviour of wasting food. It has been estimated that nearly one-third of the food produced in the world for human consumption is wasted every year. This wastage starts from processing continues up to packing, supply management, and consumption.Due to imperfect packaging methods and inefficient supplying system, a considerable amount of food is lost. According to one estimate, about 40 percent of fruits and vegetables and 30 percent of cereals are wasted and do not reach the consumers because of improper packaging and supplying techniques. Prevalent ways of processing and subsequent supplying of paddy and other grains result into wastage of a part of it. Common Fruit growers know it better, while packaging, what quantity of fruits is wasted. Fully ripened fruit is often discarded as ‘rotten’ because of apprehensions about its transportation. Same is the case with vegetables and other foodstuffs.
These squandered grains, discarded fruit and vegetables make a large part of wasted food. Imagine if these grains, ripe fruit, and vegetable reach any poor, how great it would be. At the consumption stage, significant levels of food wastage occur. The gluttony, most people are indulged in is itself a form of wastage. Some people eat like a horse without thinking about health risks that overeating leads to. They keep on inviting ailments rather than getting any benefit but never cogitate, how by exercising moderation in eating we can help others. The excessive food that we take can easily become a morsel for a destitute.
Our weddings, events, restaurants, hostels, and houses are a major source of food wastage. At weddings, a huge amount of food is wasted. A large amount of food including multiple dishes are served, which results in leftovers that finally finds a place in trash bins. It would have been far better to have control mechanism at our weddings for prevention of food-wastage. However, even in absence of a mechanism, we can play a significant role in reducing wastage of food by best use of leftovers. Leftovers from weddings and even from our homes, restaurants, hostels, and hotels are often thrown away. But there is an option for us to make better use of it. We can recycle leftovers. We can make many other dishes from it, which can be used for the next meal. Massimo Botturra of Italy – the world’s best chef has come up with this innovative idea. He has founded the association namely ‘Food for Soul’ with the motive to fight food waste. He uses surplus food /leftovers productively to tackle food wastage and nourish poorest people of the city. Most of Hoteliers and restaurateur, across the world particularly India, have followed suit that is a good sign. Others, who are not aware of this idea, should imitate the same .So that more and more necessitous are benefited. In fact, using leftovers to feed the poor living in our vicinity would be one of the finest uses of leftovers. By this way the uneaten edibles from our homes, restaurants, etc. can fill the bellies of many and eliminate their hunger.
Efforts are on throughout India and fortunately, in our state too, to reach out the hunger struck population. No doubt, some NGO’s are working to utilize extra cooked food and give it to needier. But, the challenge is big and efforts are small. Broad-gauge efforts are required that must be started from the individual level. While processing, packaging, supplying, and consuming, utmost care needs to be taken to check the frittering. Through this mindfulness, we can preserve lot of food and can make it available to the poor. In addition, if everyone would refrain from wasting food and take care of penurious people of respective communities, we can ensure food availability for a maximum number of deprived people.
It is worth to mention, feeding hungry cannot obliterate hunger as it is related to several problems. However, we cannot deny the fact that hunger itself is the root of various other troubles. Hunger deprives a person from growth. It increases the vulnerability of a person to a myriad of complications, which can have an adverse impact on social, behavioural, emotional, and physical health of a person. Satisfying one’s hunger can make him eligible to earn livelihood otherwise his destiny is elimination. So, we must think logically to gain the best of both worlds.
(The writer can be reached at: [email protected])