Experience of last few decades shows that in one
country after the other, liberalism warriors have been losing their hallowed aim and turning selfish
Dr Sudip Kar Purkayastha
Liberalism has been a fact of life in democratic countries. Propounded in the 17th century by John Locke, it represents a powerful political philosophy that says that men are by nature free and equal, they have right to life, liberty and property and that people only conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government to ensure that they can enjoy their rights without hindrance. The government exists with the consent of people and can be replaced when it fails to protect people’s rights. Locke defended the principle of majority rule. Prima facie, democracy has been in sync with this philosophy more than any other form of governance. Adoption of the spirit of liberalism kept check on authoritarian tendencies of governments and helped in expanding the tenets of democracy in several countries,
especially in the West. Liberal media, in consort with liberal intellectuals acted as positive force through its power to
influence people’s perception of reality or ‘media construct reality’. Such hold over people catalysed great transformations and enabled the liberals to facilitate changes in ruling regimes in several democratic countries.
Every ideology can, however, be corrupted due to innate human frailties like greed for power and money. Insiders can do greater damage. George Orwell’s ‘The Animal Farm’ exposes how the tribe of ‘once ideologues’ can smoothly
succumb to the lure of power and benefits at the same time spinning perverse logic to uphold their moral pretence. Every
ideology, however sublime, needs to be protected from the vagaries of human greed. Incidentally, communist
philosophers of stature too laid down the need for periodical purging of the communist leaders and intellectuals.
Liberalism has been an exalted political philosophy and its success depended inter-alia on the purity,
integrity and social commitment of the intellectuals acting as its purveyors to the arena of politics and governance. Unfortunately no great purging of these intellectuals has taken place for long. Coteries with own axes to grind are ruling the roost. They have been dividing nations on the plank of majority and minority, hyping emotions, indulging prejudices, and endangering conflicts among groups and communities.
Experience of last few decades shows that in one country after the other, chunks of liberalism warriors have been losing their hallowed aim and turning selfish. With the power of mass media to shape public opinion and thereby change
political regimes in democratic countries rising, they have been eyeing on consequent benefits. Across countries they have been craftily building up coalition with select groups or communities to manipulate political regimes. In particular they have been choosing youth and students, who are idealistic and impressionable, to drive their agenda.
Simultaneously, they have been attacking and denigrating culture, heritage and core values of the majority population which form the very substratum of ‘nation states’— all these by misinterpreting idea of liberalism. As part of such exercises, some intellectuals nominally belonging to the majority community have been seen making clever use of their identity to demean own community and inviting it to the path of self-effacement.
Generally speaking, while the liberalism crusaders ought to have fought for individual rights in a nation on a holistic basis, they became growingly involved in catering to interests of only select groups. They ignored rights of individuals even. Thus while one sees liberals strongly advocating rights of a particular religious minority in West Europe and North America, their apathy to the heavily
suppressed individual rights of women in the community is conspicuous. Because they have departed from the noble aim of liberalism- which stood for right of every individual across caste, creed, community and gender, bulk of the present day liberal media and liberal intellectuals are losing both credibility and relevance.
Steady emergence of tech-based social media has been exposing the pretenders of liberalism and diminishing their efficacy in manipulating political regimes and agenda. This new genre media giving free access to all is allowing people in nations understand how the liberal media had ravaged the mainstream thoughts and ideas. ‘Down but not out as yet’ the deceived people are trying to rebuild their national identity from the ‘remains’. A confrontation has thus commenced within the nations that are busy in rediscovering their core values against the so-called liberals. Unwilling to give up their power the latter are resorting to both scheming and specious logic to suppress the resurgent popular will. Perusal of three consecutive developments in the lives of nation-states in three continents illustrates the point.
Electing Modi-led NDA Government with 336 MPs in May 2014 was a powerful snub on the so-called liberals. They, both the intellectuals and media, had staked their all to prevent Modi but he came home riding on popular will. But their resistance continued and it continues till day in different garbs and manners like Intolerance & Award Wapsi campaigns (2015), Azadi Campaign in JNU & other universities (2016), trying to foment discontent in armed forces through social media (2016) and Hate Campaign against Student Organisation affiliated to the ruling BJP (2017). The underlying purpose is to deny the moral legitimacy of Modi Government and suggest to the people that they had made wrong
electoral choice. To their dismay however Modi’s approval rate remains very high even going into the 34th month of his Government.
If Modi’s success had shocked the liberals, Brexit (June 2016) stunned them. The liberals there were having a good grip over vast sections of mass media and actively
canvassed against Britain’s exit from EU. Prima facie, going out of EU made bad economic sense and embracing
uncertainties. Still, majority of vote-casting Britons (51.9 per cent), seemingly fearful of losing national
identity, opted for that course. Liberal camps in Britain and across the World condemned that decision and spun
theories to prove it was wrong.
Trump’s election in America (November 2016) has perhaps been the severest of blows on the liberals. He
campaigned on the plank of ‘America First’ which has as its components issues inter-alia measures for job creation, tax reduction, health care, restrictions on immigrations, and fight against radical Islamic terrorism. Large sections of mass media and liberal intellectuals first did not take notice of him as a serious
contender. Then they actively canvassed against him. As his chances grew they brought charges of moral depravities in a chain. Finally, a magazine had even
printed its cover page the picture of Hillary Clinton and welcoming her to White House. They could not believe their eyes and ears when results were out.
Trump is into his second month of Presidency. He seems to have embarked upon his own policies and programmes. But the liberals are not reconciled. They are questioning his legitimacy without relent. Initially they organised protest marches not only in America but also in
various country capitals across the world. The
protesters in US wore tattoos reading ‘Trump is not my President’. They roared the same slogans in processions. Going farther, they planned numbers of ‘impeachment rallies’ to drive home the message that Trump did not have moral authority to continue in office. Intriguingly attacks continue pouring in over him from outside as well.
Through such sustained activities they are questioning the wisdom of American people and seemingly suggesting that democratic system has no legitimacy unless it is vetted by them. But such recalcitrance is not helping the liberals. Few, if any, are agreeable to give them a ‘veto power’ in democratic processes. Faced with the prospect of losing primacy the liberals are growing increasingly restive. They are in quest of new techniques to buttress their points of view. The latest in the slew is the bogey of ‘post truth’ to convince people that they in fact made errors of judgement in elections. This newly introduced lexicon is confusing people but not convincing them.
The manner in which the so-called
liberals are trying to undermine the democratic processes the world over, does not augur well for the posterity. Notwithstanding its drawbacks and limitations, democracy still remains relatively more acceptable than all other forms of governance.
(The writer is a senior columnist)
Comments