IARU GSP 2011: Understanding the Past, Predicting the Future1

Name: PingasariTandrawijaya Submitted: 8/13/2011

Which of the following do you consider the most important issue in contemporary world politics and why: democracy, terrorism, nationalism, poverty, or none of these?

In this essay, I will be briefly looking at some of the issues arguably central to contemporary world politics, and also touch upon my approach in a preliminary evaluation of their relevance and importance. Here, I define contemporary as the arena of international politics after the cold-war period. Specifically, I want to show that poverty is the most important issue in contemporary world politics, as weighed from the point of view of its significant influence on stability, creation of a socially-responsible egalitarian society, as well as on promotion of morality and consequently diversity. By ranking the importance of each of these issues, we can then proceed with a more focused and effective discussions of the subject matter. Firstly, I contend that importance of a particular issue is conferred based upon how its processes and end goals can improve an individuals well-being, in harmony with an active pursuit of his/her societys ideals. To quote Bertrand Russell, The aim of politics should be to make the lives of individuals as good as possibleto adjust the relations of human beings in such a way that each severally may have as much of good in his existence as possible. Here, I assume an individuals well-being to refer to his/her short term and long term physical as well as mental needs, as perceived by the individual himself. In a more complex way, societal ideals also contain a set of universal goals, aside from relativistic ones. Common goods can be a form of their manifestation. Likewise, universality is precluded when societal ideals are designed to satisfy moral ideals. Meanwhile, relativity comes in the form of societal ideals that originate from socio-cultural heritage of a community, and both kinds of

IARU GSP 2011: Understanding the Past, Predicting the Future2

ideals are weighed equally. Moreover, these societal ideals may include, but not limited to, peace, ethical society, sustainable development, law and order, justice/equality/fairness, equitable wealth distribution, egalitarianism, stability, morally responsible society, futureoriented, as well as celebration of diversity and freedom. To identify and justify which ideals are universal and which are relative is beyond the scope of this paper. For the purpose of addressing the question posed, I have assumed here three societal ideals (in uniformly descending order of significance): morality, equality, and stability. They will become the basis for the comparative process that follows. Morality, in broad sense, refers to what a member of the society ought to think, feel, and act in different situations, but within limitations set by human nature as John Rawls himself has emphasized in his concept of pragmatic justice. The goal of morality is to maximize the utility or well-being of each individual, not the aggregate, in harmony with their non-human environment such as the biosphere. On the other hand, equality alludes to an ideal of equal opportunity that is guided by moral ideals, first and foremost. The idea of morally-guided opportunity here can be understood in economic, social, cultural, or political sense. Lastly, stability is defined here as a gradual progression of social, cultural and economic equilibriums, so as to meet the evolving needs of the constituent individuals and their society. They can be reasonably assumed, in most sense, to be universal values based on our experience with world politics. Now that we have the criteria in hand, what are the issues at hand? To simplify matter, I will limit the issues to those mentioned in the question statement, namely: democracy, terrorism, nationalism, and poverty. Next, I shall provide a brief theoretical definition for each of these issues, as well as how they compare with regards of their influence on individual well-being as well as the afore-mentioned three societal ideals of morality, equality, and stability.

IARU GSP 2011: Understanding the Past, Predicting the Future3

So what is democracy? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, democracy, in general, is a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making. There are different kinds of normative democracy, depending on how one chooses to define each keyword, like collective decision making or equality. Firstly, principle of equality is already inherent in the concept of democracy, especially in equality of opportunity. Whether the manifestation of this equality is guided by morality, and how democracy impacts individual well-being, morality and stability, are contentious. In my opinion, democracy is important insofar as it provides a platform of equality and opportunity on which an individual can express himself. This, while necessary, is not sufficient to achieve the end goal individual and societal well-being. Democracy empowers all individuals equally to express his/her own well-thought decisions. This assumes that everybody, by virtue of their rationality and hardworking nature, will act consistently, consciously or not, in terms of self-interest that then adds to and/or protect their well-being. Yet, human nature and condition are less than perfect, which challenges the assumption and therefore, the notion of democracy as a pressing issue in contemporary world politics. More importantly, opportunity alone does not guarantee fulfilment of needs. There is a relative need for different sets of capitals (economical, social, moral, or even environmental) that are not regulated by the sinister invisible hands, which put little or noterminal value in important capitals like benevolence and kinship. Democracy seems to champion the individual over the common good most of the times, and is anthropocentric. Morality, on the other hand, focuses on relationships an individual has, as well as the greater good of the society, which does not always overlap with self-interest. Moreover, morality can put emphasis on significant non-human moral objects such as the environment, unlike democracy which focuses on the subject a thinking human. Without the guide of morality to the

IARU GSP 2011: Understanding the Past, Predicting the Future4

equality afforded, there can be higher chance of social instability due to the clash of selfinterests. Nonetheless, it is argued elsewhere that democracy encourages individuals to critically assess the moral framework that leads them to the decision, thus a possibility of enhancing moral qualities too. Still, the assumption of a highly responsible human nature may not hold in all cases. In case of terrorism, one approach is that we can look into the extent of negative impact on the criteria, assuming that it entails only the highly undesirable consequences of violence and intimidation. It has a huge impact in terms of creating instability through fear, and to a lesser extent demoralization. It also certainly has an impact in terms of equality against a particular religion or group heuristically associated with act of terrorism. Nonetheless, I think the impact of terrorism is not as universal or deeply-rooted as all other issues. Rather, it is confined around the periphery of the aggressors and the victims. It is unlike nationalism or poverty which is not only widespread and global, but has been a more fundamental subject matter, ever since humans learnt the notion of sovereignty (outside the context of a state) and trade to fulfil their and the societys good. Nationalism, again in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is understood generally as (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. By this definition, it becomes a precursor of terrorism, in cases where violence ensues from a clash of civilizations based on nationalistic sentiments. Nationalism can give rise to equality for minorities and the oppressed, and consequently more opportunities to meet their individual needs. This is in spite of the moral costs of radical nationalism, and potential instability caused by lack of resources to manage plurality in liberal nationalism. Again as it concerns itself mainly with a notion of equality, the argument that I have used against democracy can be applied. While definitely significant, in my

IARU GSP 2011: Understanding the Past, Predicting the Future5

opinion, poverty still stands aside as the most essential issue, whose relentless scourge does not spare any state on this earth until this day. Poverty, I contend, is the most important issue in contemporary world politics today, not only because it occupies a central position in a web of causality and interconnection between all other issues mentioned, but also because of its vivid, pervasive manifestations that continue to challenge the pursuit of individual well-being and societal ideals globally. Indonesia for example, has made laudable progress in her effort to ensure democracy, fight against terrorism, and maintain a healthy dose of nationalism in the face of ethnic and religious plurality. But behind each of these goals that require active participation from the citizens, abject poverty, aside from corruption, remains a fundamental bottleneck. How likely is an individual who does not have the necessary means to fulfil his basic needs from day to day, to be motivated in for example, eradication of terrorism or fight against corruption in a democracy? Based on Maslows hierarchy, the answer is highly unlikely. Like a closed-loop argument, poverty is both a cause and a consequence in many political issues. To define poverty in itself is a big challenge as it varies spatially and temporally, and it is not limited only to economic poverty. One of its GDP growths main contributors, industrialisation, comes at a price. Some include, but not limited to, gradual loss of morality rooted in traditional values and practices, environmental degradation, loss of community spirit, social instability, widening income inequality. In an urban slum I visited once near a big city in Indonesia, people suffer from moral poverty more than economic poverty. Individual well-being of the villagers are well met, with many having flat-screen LCD TV in their living rooms thanks to the booming textile industries nearby. However, the societal ideals degraded as villagers, some out of necessity, replace their traditional sensibilities with capitalistic ones, resulting in a change of lifestyle. For those who embrace

IARU GSP 2011: Understanding the Past, Predicting the Future6

this change, their well-being is taken care of. For those who do not, their well-being is compromised. This in turn creates inequality and instability in the social fabric. In all, I have argued that poverty is a central and dire issue in contemporary world politics today. Its consequences or alleviation directly impact the fulfilment of individual and societal goals to a large extent, more so than democracy, terrorism, or nationalism. In fact, poverty can be argued to have contributed to causality of issues related to these themes as well. That said, I recognize a crucial need for a good governance where all other issues gain more importance than poverty itself in the making thereof, in alleviation of poverty. Future considerations should take note that none of these issues exist in isolation, and due considerations ought to be made for a comprehensive evaluation of any particular problem.