Democracy, Human Rights, and COVID-19 Crisis

The COVID-19 crisis has affected almost every aspect of human life and society around the globe. While the economic costs are already felt, the impact in other areas will take months, perhaps years, to be felt and fully measured. It has, however, exposed many fault lines and generated intense debate on human rights and democracy.

Human rights originated in the Enlightenment era with philosophers like John Locke arguing individuals have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, which cannot be infringed by the state. Called initially natural rights, these rights formed a bedrock of modern states.
Advertisement

These ideas in the 21st century led to the envisioning of a world in which the security of individuals is prioritized over the security of borders and military powers. With its seven dimensions of interrelated security — economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security — human security heralded a period in which human rights and wellbeing of the individual were prioritized.

The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals aimed at promoting human rights and security throughout the world. However, the rise of civil wars or intrastate conflicts in the post-Cold War period and the rising assertiveness of authoritarian states, besides the issues of poverty and underdevelopment, undermined these goals.

There appeared a movement of contradictory forces — while the ideas of democracy, human rights, and human security were gaining ground and becoming popular, the rise of authoritarian states and illiberal democracies undermined democratic ideals. This has become more apparent during the current crisis.

State actions to address coronavirus have undermined human rights and democracy. Emergency powers acquired by the states to provide security to the people have actually undermined the security of the very people. While measures like lockdown and social distancing have been used to address the pandemic, they have have become tools of repression by authoritarian states. The measures of lockdown, complete or partial, have sparked protests and criticism in democratic states like the United States.

This is, however, not happening globally. The democratic states are open to public scrutiny and accountability. The authoritarian states evade any such accountability. Instead, during this crisis, the authoritarian states and illiberal democracies have acquired unbridled powers. They have forcibly quarantined people and adopted coercive measures such as flogging and even given orders for shoot-at-sight for the violators. They have also largely failed in providing basic healthcare facilities or the necessities of life to the suffering people during this time.

However, there is no visible public unrest in these states. While democratic states fail, they fail in the public glare, and the leaders of these states, being accountable to citizens, may confront harsh criticism, the authoritarian states enjoy unbridled power and their leaders remain above public scrutiny. While leaders of the democracies are accountable and face regular elections, the authoritarian state leaders face no elections or face sham elections.

The crisis demands global cooperation. Instead of coordinating policies to address the crisis, some authoritarian states have actually distanced from any such ideas. China’s dismissal of any international investigation into the origin of the virus, which led to the loss of thousands of lives and put human security in jeopardy all over the world, is a reflection of this trend.

The social distancing needed to stop the spread of the virus has translated into the behavior of states and turned into noncooperation and political distancing. In fact, contrary trends have emerged. Some states have indulged in a misinformation campaign and tried to turn this global catastrophe as a political tool to their advantage. In the midst of this crisis, the South China Sea has seen increasing militarization.

While the post-Cold War globalized world brought us a promise of a better world as the ideological battle ended, the recent developments display pessimistic signs. Psychologist Steven Pinker’s optimism that a peaceful world is our 21st-century right is appearing distant.

The polarization among states has increased, and a new Cold War is often talked about. At a broader plane, to adapt the phrase of Samuel Huntington, the coming years may see a clash of ideas and practices of democracy and authoritarianism. In this clash, human rights and security will be the wagers.


This article was published in Orlando Sentinel on May 2, 2020. This is the link to the article in the newspaper:
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-op-coronavirus-human-rights-20200502-w7myihslzjdvhebkr4eogq6rme-story.html

Moralizing International Politics

This article makes an appeal to bridge the chasm between the practice of international politics and the universal moral principles. Violation of moral principles has emerged a norm than exception in international politics. States and global institutions have proved ineffective to checkmate violent conflicts and wanton killings as in Syria. It is not they are incapable or lack resources. The problem lies elsewhere. Ego is a major cause behind much of the hazards in international politics. The article problematizes ego and calls for a broader thinking in international politics. 

Ban Ki-moon, the former head of the United Nations, expressed the frustration of our age. He lamented: “It should shame us all…the suffering of the Syrian people continues to plumb new depths … The international community, and in particular the Security Council, cannot afford to waste any further time in ending the cycle of violence… it is time to find an exit from this madness” (The United Nations 2015). Syria provides a stark example before us how states and global institutions have proved ineffective to ensure international peace and security. Within a span of six years since the crisis erupted, more than 400,000 people lost lives and unaccountable others uprooted. The powerful states in the United Nations flexed muscles over means to realize peace. Peace remained elusive.

One of the factors that contribute to the ineffectiveness of the international community and its leaders is the technological-moral chasm. There has been rapid growth in technology, particularly the communication technology, but the thinking pattern has not witnessed parallel growth. The old primordial way of thinking has not changed. The archetypal thinking in terms of binaries – mine vs thine, us vs them, my group vs rival group – has not evolved over centuries though major changes appeared in the structure and organization of human living. This thinking has produced a paradox. In the midst of developed technology, globalization and discourses of a flat and borderless world, the states are engaged in re-bordering practices. Technology has been used to rigidify barriers – us vs them – through narrow visions of security. Both hard power and soft power are used to strengthen these binaries in thinking and practice.

Does seclusion/isolation help? Is an isolated state immune from insecurity beyond its borders? In this age of globalization, how would states ensure safety at home when there is violence outside? The global concerns such as terrorism, religious extremism and climate change transcend state borders. Isolation as a foreign policy strategy might have worked in the past, but in the contemporary world isolation implies invitation to more problems. A small happening in a small part of the globe can shape international developments. How would erecting barriers ensure security of one state while other states undergo violent crises? Does eerie calm imply peace? When minds are disturbed, security is fragile, peace is uneasy, when we have blatantly messed up with Nature, how would we ensure the survival of human race in the decades and centuries to come?

The states spend billions of dollars in building weapons, while vouching disarmament. States spent around 1686 billion US dollars on defense in 2016. Contrast this figure with another figure: from 2014 to 2016, about 795 million people in the world suffered from chronic undernourishment. Is it not a violation of human moral principle to invest billions in weapons to secure people and borders while people remain hungry?

Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo argued, like individuals, states have egos– amplified through national habits, prejudices and idiosyncrasies (Sri Aurobindo 1962). When applied to international politics, they lead to jingoism, exploitation and wars, leading to practices like colonialism and imperialism. Colonialism and imperialism, one of the worst forms of exploitation, have ended. However, they were only manifestation of an exploitative substructure. The root, the ego, is intact, and its manifestation has acquired new shapes. The Indian philosopher argued that state ego could evolve when state leaders think in terms of larger human unity and harmony. The establishment of the United Nations, after the failure of the League of Nations, was hailed as a right step in this direction. The UN was established with a promise to ensure dignity and equality to all states. Has this happened?

If the ultimate goal of human life is peace and security, then the theories of international politics have not fared well. Grand theorizing might provide a big picture and offer plausible explanations of developments, but they largely fail to account small developments at small places with big implications. Should not theories suggest ways to address state egos and its various avatars? Explaining developments in retrospect maybe useful as it offers insights for future action, but unless there is an active agenda to realize global peace, the theories would be limiting in their usefulness. Social science theories, dealing with human beings and their behaviors, stand in contrast to physical science theories, which deal with matter, mostly insentient. The post-behavioralism trend in political science that emerged in late 1960s due to ‘deep dissatisfaction in political research and teaching’ called for ‘new strategies in science’. David Easton in his presidential address at American Political Science Association in 1969 called for “the development of new norm of behavior” as the post-behavioral trend “sees policy engagement as a social responsibility of the intellectual…” He further agued, “Someday it may also require the release of the social scientist from bondage to the unique needs and objectives of his own national political system” (Easton 1969, 1061). The trend, however, petered out quickly. Now is the time to revive this trend.

Some theories suggest that the world has become a better place to live since inter-state wars have declined. Are we living in a more secure and peaceful world? What about wars within communities and states and their international ramifications? How does one define conflict in Syria – intrastate, interstate or both, or a more dangerous face of traditional rivalries? Thousands of fault lines along regions, religions, races, ethnicities have emerged. Even the threat of interstate wars with a nuclear angle cannot be undermined. The present crisis can be compared to a can of worms, with worms – multiple conflicts at various levels – continuously crawl out, in all shapes, sizes and colors and challenge individuals and states alike.

The dilemma over pleasure, happiness and peace was well depicted in the life of the Greek philosopher Diogenes. The philosopher asked the Emperor Alexander, who offered him all comforts of life, not to block sun light and that was all what he needed from him. With a lantern in his hand, Diogenes searched for an honest man. This act may defy rational understanding, but it contains a deeper message, which can help salvage humanity from the multiple crises. Pretensions, subterfuges, and other instruments meant for tangential gains bring hazards in its trail and harm the perpetrator. Gandhi’s caution rings true: “For one man cannot do right in one department of life whilst he is occupied in doing wrong in any other department. Life is one indivisible whole” (Gandhi 1969, 571).

A report titled, “Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts” claimed that if the greenhouse gas emission continues at the current rate, “… by 2100 Boston’s average summer-high temperatures will likely be more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than they are now, ‘making it feel as steamy as North Miami Beach is today’” (Annear 2014). A large iceberg of the size of Delaware broke off from an ice shelf in Antarctica in July 2017. According to a report, “global warming has pushed temperatures up to 5 degrees higher in the region since the 1950s and could increase up to 7 degrees more by the end of the century, putting more stress on the ice” (Rice 2017). Tony de Brum, the former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his role in Paris Climate agreement, died recently at the age of 72. Brum witnessed the ‘Bravo shot,’ the thermonuclear test at Bikini Atoll when he was 9 years old. He became a champion of nuclear disarmament and environment protection. Brum, whose island home went under waters due to rising ocean, argued, “The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us…We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual” (The Guardian 2017). Gandhi’s ‘Nature has for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed’ provides a powerful message. Unless the very basic thinking of states and their leaders change, it will be difficult to moralize international politics.

Plato devised a scheme of governance in which the king, the modern equivalent of president/prime minister, must be a philosopher. The king must undergo decades of education to govern the state. The king and his class must rise above the notions of mine and thine, live a communal life, eat in common kitchen, transcend boundaries of family and group, and become free to dedicate his life to state. Applying the Platonic yardstick to modern day kings, leaders of modern states, may appear farfetched, but it provides a vision how a leader should govern a state.

For moralizing international politics, one state does not have to dominate or be dominated. Morality requires collective conscience and action. The states, through their leaders, need to develop an integral moral psychology that informs social, economic and political worlds as they interact and shape each other. Powerful states may provide leadership in this direction.

References:

Annear, Steve (2014) Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts. Boston Daily, July 11, http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/07/11/climate-central-map-heat-boston-miami/, accessed 4 July 2017.

Easton, David (1969) The New Revolution in Political Science. The American Political Science Review; 63 (4):1051-1061.

Gandhi, Mahatma (1969) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 32. New Delhi: The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.

Rice, Doyle (2017) Massive iceberg nearly the size of Delaware breaks off Antarctica. USA Today, 12 July, https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/07/12/massive-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctica/102637874/, accessed 4 July 2017.

Sri Aurobindo (1962) Human Cycle, the Ideal of Human Unity, War and Self-Determination. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

The Guardian (2017) Tony de Brum, champion of Paris climate agreement, dies aged 72, 23 August, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/tony-de-brum-champion-of-paris-climate-agreement-dies-aged-72, accessed 24 August 2017.

The United Nations (2015) Statement by the Secretary-General on the Third Anniversary of the Geneva Communique on Syria. 30 June, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/06/30/world/middleeast/ap-un-united-nations-syria.html, accessed 5 August 2017.

(This article was earlier published in Transcend Media Weekly: https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/12/moralizing-international-politics/)

Multiethnic and Pluralistic States have to Stay

Development in Ukraine is a matter of concern as it has implications not only for Ukraine but also for other multiethnic and pluralistic states in the world. I am strongly in favor of multiethnic and pluralistic states. I had argued after the Kosovo independence that the Kosovo may not be a very good model for the disgruntled regions around the world. I remember after the Kosovo independence the separatists in Kashmir called for referendum in Kashmir, over which India and Pakistan are locked in a bitter rivalry. In case of Kashmir, the referendum may appear more logical than Kosovo as in the case of the former the United Nations had recommended the procedure to which both the rivals had agreed. Now, they have different positions on the issue.

Can a state be monistic (I am using the word ‘monistic’ – primarily a theological and philosophical term – in a broader sense, implying the basis of state is only one identity traditionally defined – religion, race, ethnicity, etc.)? Or, rather – should all states be monistic? In the modern, globalized world, can a state’s identity be related purely to one race or one religion or one ethnicity? One of the political leaders in the 20^th century opined, pure race is a myth – there is no such thing as a pure race. The matter may seem different in case of religion (though every religion has many sects, factions, etc), but this may not be possible in case of ethnicity.

Somewhere I came across a viewpoint that if we restructure the existing states on the basis of monism, we will have hundreds of new states on the international scene. The counter argument may be true. The question is – is it possible? And how far will it help better organize human life?

The answer is not that simple. Identities clash. Some religions may believe that religion should be the sole basis of state formation and state boundary – other identities are subsidiary to religious identity. The application of this kind of logic is far-reaching. Take the case of India. It has population belonging to all religions. India has Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas – it has hundreds of languages though its constitution gives official status to about two dozen languages – it has people of many ethnicities. Due to these myriad diversities some analysts prefer to refer India a multinational state. If we apply the logic of monistic state, then India needs to be divided to dozens of states. One of the founders of the modern India, Jawaharlal Nehru was fond of arguing that though India is diverse it is united. This is famously known unity in diversity.

Go to the north east of India – we have China, full of diversities. Whether Tibet in the south east or Xinjiang in north east – the people inhabiting these regions are different from the Han Chinese. One of my friends told me that differences persist within Han Chinese – there are differences between the Chinese of the south and the Chinese of the east. Go to the north of China – we have Russia. Though the Slavic Russians rule the country, the population belonging to different religions and races has grown tremendously. Some reports suggest that cities like Moscow may have a Muslim majority population in 30 or 40 years. I do not know how far this prediction will be true. But Russia has vastly diverse population, belonging to diverse races, religions, languages and ethnicity. Russia has Chechens, Tatars, Ingush ethnic communities, and has besides Orthodox Christianity have people practicing Islam, Buddhism, and even Shamanism.

Across Bering Strait from Russia is the United States of America – perhaps the most diverse country in the world. All kinds of religions, practices, identities, cultures, and what not are found in USA. Perhaps that is its beauty, and keeps it young, dynamic and developed. People migrate to the country every year, mingle with the people and its richness, and in turn enrich it. I would say the founders of the country were great visionaries and could foresee that to develop and prosper the country must adopt diversity and pluralism, instead of monism. Hence, when one says the identity is American, or the US identity, it embodies in itself diversity, multiethnic and pluralism. When we say America or the USA – it does not imply any religion, race, color or ethnicity. Barack Obama before becoming President told the audience (in Chicago in 2008 as I remember) that it (implying the USA) is not Black America or White America; it is the United States of America. Arguing in a Durkheimian way, America has welded a new identity –a multiethnic and pluralistic identity.

We know Europe champions multiculturalism and pluralism despite noises from some quarters. In fact the European Union is an embodiment of pluralist values.

I have nothing against the existing monistic states. The question is – How many more monistic states? Is it possible to have more monistic states in a globalized interconnected world? Will the attempts to create monistic states lead to more violence as seen in some parts of the world? Multiethnic and pluralistic states have to stay. Rather they should be the hallmark of the 21^st century globe. Religion, ethnicity, color, race, and other identity markers may have utility in human life, but they do not give all meaning to a peaceful and happy existence. And particularly in the context of state building, arguments favoring monism have increasingly proved obsolete, even devastating.

I know it is a complicated formulation. One may argue what about oppression of a minority community by a majority community in a state, which calls itself pluralistic and multiethnic? This is a valid question. I have hopes on both minority and majority communities within a state to resolve the differences. The majority community needs to come forward to address the concerns of the minority community. The developments in some conflict zones in which minority protests were crushed violently is unfortunate deplorable. There should be a fair law to apply against unlawful activities conducted by any person – whether belonging to majority or minority. I emphasize the law must be fair. The international organizations – particularly the United Nations – can play a meaningful role in reinforcing multiethnic and pluralistic values. But for that its politicization must stop, also must stop the power rivalry in its decision making bodies. There should be some global norms, reinforced by the global body. For that there needs to be consensus among the big powers. That can be possible when the big powers do not transgress the laws of the UN when it suits their national interests and enforce the international laws when they suit their national interests.

A modified version of this article was earlier published at www.opendemocracy.net