THE Paris shootings shocked the world and signaled deep polarized views. Why are
views so polarized everywhere?
Polarization today is more acute than ever in all societies; protests in some,
extremism in others. Syria is already in civil war, while 45 per cent of people in
Scotland voted for separation from the United Kingdom. Factionalism, fanaticism and
nationalism arise when people become insecure about their jobs, health and security.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) has identified 10 top trends for 2015. These are
(1) deepening income inequality, (2) persistent jobless growth, (3) lack of leadership,
(4) rising geopolitical competition, (5) weakening of representative democracy, (6)
rising pollution in the developing world, (7) increasing occurrence of severe weather
events, (8) intensifying nationalism, (9) increasing water stress; and (10) growing
health concerns, plus an emerging concern on immigration.
This long list can be simplified into three sets of divisive issues – economic
(inequality, unemployment and lack of leadership), climate and environment
(pollution, weather change, water stress) and social (geopolitical tension, weakening
democracy, nationalism, health and immigration).
Poverty, unemployment, natural disasters, civil strife all give rise to insecurity, which
is perhaps why 86 per cent of the people WEF surveyed, thought that there is global
lack of leadership. After all, when communities are insecure, it is the great statesmen
or stateswomen who stand up to provide the vision, confidence and trust to pass
through difficult times and hold people together.
We get instead almost total disconnect between citizens and their governments. The
WEF has perceptively identified: “We have 19th century institutions with 20th century
mindsets, attempting to communicate with 21st century citizens.” Small wonder that
representative democracy is weakened when it is defined as the absolute freedom to
elect or reject leaders with short-term agendas, pandering to popular opinion of the
moment.
Politics is supposed to be the art of the compromise, but in a global society, deeply
divided by ideology, culture, religion, class or generation, it is not even clear that
compromise will work. Occupy Hong Kong and the youth movement is an example
where society is so polarized along generational lines that both sides talk past each
other. In Bangkok, such protests were solved by a military coup.
Technology has been a major disruptor of the status quo.
It is very cool to have the latest smartphone, but information is delivered so fast that
there is as much disinformation and distortion of public opinion through Twitter and
Facebook as manipulation by media channels. But governments cannot provide the
leadership when they genuinely do not know better than the latest opinion polls or
what Big Data is telling them on the Web.
No less a statesman like Henry Kissinger, in his latest book World Order bemoans
the absence of leadership today. He identifies perceptively that in the Age of the
Internet, every Netizen thinks that, having access to all kinds of information, justice
and freedom can be demanded and will be available instantly on autopilot. The young
forget that what exists today is a confluence of history, culture, institutions and
geography.
Technology has cut short the time to think, reflect and act. Every decision is
evaluated by instant likes and dislikes, making opinions absolute, rather than relative.
Man is a social animal. We live today in crowded space, made tolerable only because
we are tolerant of each other. Absolutism and extremism in any religion, creed or
culture can lead only to absolute or radical outcomes.
Monoculture
It is already an accepted fact in biology and botany that monoculture makes for
system fragility. The most stable systems are those which are open, diverse and
adaptable, which allows for simultaneous competition and cooperation of different
ideas, action and pathways.
In technology as in real life, there are no absolute winners or one single path to God
or Nirvana. What works is fuzzy logic, the ability to bridge different technical
standards, rules or systems. Fuzzy logic is about tolerance – for different standards,
values and beliefs.
The need for humility and tolerance is greater than ever, because the familiar path of
the past is no longer an adequate guide for an uncertain future.
The Fourth Estate – the media – used to play an important role as the channel
through which relatively independent and informed opinions are presented for public
debate. But as the commercial basis of print media is being taken over by the
Internet, the Web has become a jungle of commercial or issue-biased information,
which in turn reinforces extreme views and action, particularly for the innocent young.
An open society is one in which the system and society is tolerant of differences of
views and opinions, but is moderate and humble in response to such differences.
There are of course limits to moderation and tolerance. When someone inflicts
violence on others and threatens public security, then there will be consequences.
Extreme views have a tendency to generate an arms race of escalating violence and
retaliatory action. No one wins from escalating infliction of violence on each other.
When individuals take the law into their own hands, there is no rule of law. The law
and the state can only do so much in restraining individual anti-social behavior. The
heavy hand of the state bureaucracy can have lots of unintended consequences.
Which is why family and community are so important in reinforcing the respect of
values of mutual recognition, mutual respect and tolerance of the fact that we are
different, we should be different, and we can and should all live together respecting
each other’s values and beliefs.
Inequality has led to the breakdown of family and community values. Parents busy
with trying to make money or just living day to day neglect their young, delegating
their education to others, including the Internet. Should we be surprised if some of
them end up being influenced by extremist views and take anti-social action?
Time for parents and communities to take ownership and responsibility for their
children’s and their own future.
Andrew Sheng is writing on global issues from Asian perspectives.
A version of this article appeared in The Star Online, 17 January 2015
|
|
