Framing the political debate

If you want someone to not think of an elephant, don’t tell them to ignore elephants, George Lakoff advises in “Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate”. Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science, wrote the book in 2004 to caution liberal Democrats in the US who were losing ground to conservatives. There is a lesson for Indian liberals also. By framing their principal concern for the country as the conflict between Hinduism and Hindutva (and the place of religious minorities), they continue to direct public attention to Hindutva, and away from other issues. This suits the present government.

A surging tide of nationalism, nativism, and authoritarianism has set-back institutions of global governance

Liberals hope to win debates by rational discussion. They cannot. Because matters of faith and identity are not amenable to scientific reason. Human beings may be ‘self-interested’, as liberal economists presume, but they are not ‘rationally’ self-interested. Humans have emotions, social instincts, and loyalties that define who they are and what matters to them, Richard Haidt, a cultural psychologist, explains in “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.” He distinguishes liberal, “individualist” moral codes from conservative, “socio-centric” moral codes. Individualist moral codes have two principal foundations: do not harm others; and fairness to all. Socio-centric moral codes also have these two as foundations and three others: loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity. Thus, ‘conservative’ ideologies appeal to whole human beings in ways that ‘liberal’ ideologies cannot.

The rise of national identities, and persecution of minorities, has often coincided with an increase of economic inequalities

A surging tide of nationalism, nativism, and authoritarianism has set-back institutions of global governance. Democracy is imperiled, not only globally, but also within presumptively democratic nations—the USA, India, UK, and the EU. Around the world liberal ideologies are being pushed back by a rising tide of identity politics and social conservatism.  ‘It is the economy, stupid’ which makes candidates win elections, former President Bill Clinton once said. ‘It is self-esteem or lack of it, stupid,’ that moves the political base, Donald Trump subsequently proved. His opponent Hillary Clinton talked about economic policies. Trump talked about making Americans feel great again—particularly blue collar, white workers, who were looked down upon by Clinton (who even described them as ‘white trash’). Similarly, Brexit was won by Britishers wanting to recover control of their own affairs, though it made no sense to economists.

Bill Clinton was right though. It is the state of the global economy that has caused the rise of nationalism and authoritarianism, Thomas Piketty explains in “Capital and Ideology”. Piketty traces the evolution of economics with politics over three centuries in Europe, USA, Japan, China, and India. The rise of national identities, and persecution of minorities, has often coincided with an increase of economic inequalities. Politics becomes framed around ‘boundaries’ (national, ethnic, class) to bring up those who are being left too far behind in economic competition. Economic upheavals can become politically violent: for example, the French, Russian, and Maoist revolutions, and even international wars in the last century. Politics also plays out in largely non-violent battles for rights of factory and farm workers, black people, tribal people, backward castes, peasants, migrants, etc.

India’s economic problems cannot be papered over by high GDP

Smart political leaders frame contests to rally their sides against others. They appeal to many bases of citizens’ moral codes (in Henrich’s model), not just rationality, to gain more support for their side. When economic inequalities increase, political lines are drawn around ethnic, social or class identities. Piketty points to the surprising reversal in the positioning of democratic parties vis-à-vis conservatives in the US and Europe. ‘Democratic’ and ‘labour’ parties were, historically, parties representing those left behind against the privileged. In the US, the Democrats have now become the party of the highly educated class; and Republicans (especially under Trump) the party of people abandoned by the intelligentsia. Similarly, in UK and France, the political “right” has taken up the cause of less privileged citizens, which was traditionally the role of the “left”.

Around the world liberal ideologies are being pushed back by a rising tide of identity politics and social conservatism

Unequal economic opportunities amongst castes have been institutionalised in India by entrenched rules of the social game. Education, and the right to rule, were privileges of the upper castes. The Indian Constitution brought changes. Those furthest behind—the SC/ST—became entitled to preferential access to education and government jobs to make up for what they had been denied. The Mandal Commission added Other Backward Classes (OBC), who also have been historically discriminated against, they proved. Now, with the concept of “Economically Weaker Sections”, the total numbers demanding preferential access to education and jobs have crossed fifty percent. Clearly, the economic problem is not only at the bottom of the pyramid. It is pervasive.

India’s economic problems cannot be papered over by high GDP. India’s working age population has increased from 96 crore to 108 crore in the last five years. Young people who have been getting educated in larger numbers than ever before, even learning vocational skills, cannot find jobs. In UP, India’s largest state, the number of persons of working age who have a job has decreased in the last five years from 43% to 33%, according to CMIE. In Goa, one of India’s richest states, numbers have declined from 49% to 32%. In Punjab and Uttarakhand, the two other states going to the polls, the decline is from 42% to 37%, and 40% to 30% respectively.

Religion is a diversion—an opiate of the masses, Marx said. The Congress, other parties, and Indian liberals have fallen into the political framing trap set by the BJP. Public attention must be on the state of the economy. Economic policies focused on increasing the top line of GDP are not the solution. They must focus on the bottom-line—on increasing incomes at the bottom faster for all. Follow the farmers: they have shown a way to unite Indians of all castes and religions to fight together for economic justice.  

(The writer is a former member of the Planning Commission and author of A Billion Fireflies: Critical Conversations to Shape a New Post-pandemic World)