WITH the first quarter of the current century having come to a close, is it fair to conclude that the world has come full circle politically?
From fiery nationalisms that ignited the last world war, have we then moved to a globalising trend but now back again to rising nationalisms in the West, which are fuelling a new disorder where it’s every country for itself?
Harvard University’s political philosopher Michael J. Sandel’s book The Tyranny of Merit, subtitled What’s become of the common good, that was published in 2020 pinpointed what has been puzzling many observers of American politics: the rise of Donald Trump to the pinnacle of United States power, the presidency.
It was, of course, more than the usual to and fro of American politics where conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats alternated in taking office.
Something else is at play and, in essence, Sandel laid it down to the downtrodden working class (the deplorables, in Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate phrasing) having had enough of being talked-down to and looked-down upon by the elite ruling class.
In the author’s telling: “The political divide that mattered, the winners explained, was no longer left versus right but open versus closed.
“In an open world, success depends on education, on equipping yourself to compete and win in a global economy. This means that national governments must ensure that everyone has an equal chance to get the education on which success depends.
“But it also means that those who land on top come to believe that they deserve their success. And, if opportunities are truly equal, it means that those who are left behind deserve their fate as well,” he wrote.
So it is basically a rejection of the meritocracy credo — the so-called tyranny of merit — that led to the Trump “disruption”.
The working class has felt something is patently not right as even when it labours away, it is seeing the “smart” elite rationalising that hollowing out American industries and decimating American jobs, in the name of globalisation, actually benefits the country.
We are all too familiar with the merits (or otherwise) of meritocracy in these parts and, as in any free society, Malaysians readily engage in debates (healthy ones, of course) about the concept.
And as Americans and Europeans have lately discovered and we have known since Merdeka, questioning meritocracy as the foundation upon which we organise our societies comes attached to the political corollary of nationalisms, however broadly or narrowly defined.
Thus, the battle cry of “Make America Great Again” may in practice not be that great for new immigrants or minority Blacks and Latinos but the irony is that Trump got reelected on the back of substantial minority votes.
The hope of American progressives is that the Trump phenomenon is but a passing political phase. Then again, it may not be. The key to addressing it is to attempt to understand what lies at its root, as Sandel does.
Similarly, at home, the roots of Malay nationalism are firm and enduring. Addressing it also requires understanding the antecedents attached to it.
Politics is the way it is in any democracy not because politicians want it that way but because their ideas resonate most widely.
As to whether Western nationalisms today will be durable; the beauty of democratic governance is that voters can be persuaded to change their minds, eventually.
The writer views developments in the nation, region and the wider world from his vantage point in Kuching
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd
