Autocratisation of governance

Whither liberal democracy?

The Westphalia State System of Europe in 1648 established the popular concept of ‘nation-State’ as a single sovereign political authority across the globe. It is time to reflect on the monopoly of the so-called ‘nation-State’ and its implications in the context of the evolution of global governance. The complex interface and interaction between globalisation and the State have deeper implications on country-specific governance outcomes. The advocates of globalisation argue that globalisation has increased nation-state relationships, reduced trade barriers, expanded the market role, and brought global actors on one stage to build a ‘new world order’. This has given rise to popular paradigms such as ‘global government’ or ‘global governance’.

Critics contest that globalisation has reduced the State’s legitimacy, power and credibility through the expansion of the role of multiple actors and organisations in the governance of a country, especially in third world nations. The governments of the global south are prone to succumb to the pressures of international organisations and rules of governance, resulting in poor governance in their countries. This has been seen in many countries of the global south as they are witnessing social discontent, political instability and economic downturn.

The evolution of the modern State as a form of a political entity is expected to promote peace and order in society. Accordingly, State-led governance and development were on the rise among global nations following World War II. Post-1990s, with the forces of globalisation, the nation-States saw an increase in inequalities leading to a variety of socioeconomic and political instabilities, including conflicts. The intersection of globalisation and State is an interesting area of study to understand the nuances of the changing global political economy and also to chalk out a path for the future of the State which can be called a globalised State. In spite of the forces of integration such as globalisation, the gradual decline of democracy, producing socio-political instabilities even in developed nations, is a cause of concern. Interestingly, its roots are traceable in the centralised policies of the governing framework of global institutions such as the United Nations and its allied bodies.

The dynamics and intricacies of the changing geopolitical scenario of the world since World War II with specific reference to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) illustrate this point in a reasonable manner. Owing to its worldwide under-representation, and the hegemony of five nations, the UNSC’s centralised decision-making process remains uncertain and risky. The neo-liberal governance regime in the context of right-wing politics in India, Germany and Turkey through its authoritarian mode of governance has wider ramifications for both developing and developed nations. For the developed countries, especially in Europe and the United States of America, it reflects the changing political economy only to wither the democracy at the cost of identities and ideologies. This not only augments the decline of democracy but also highlights the persistence of global imperialism tendencies.

From the perspective of developing nations, including India and Third World nations, the following lessons are worth considering. First, it is the increasing rate of political repression and the normalisation of authoritarian governance through the means of violence. The role of neo-liberalism and its expansion to society through the State’s active intervention is the heart of the problem. The issue becomes a serious concern for all genuine democratic aspirants. The appropriation of citizen’s rights through the means of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony through identities such as religion, race, caste, class, gender, and symbolism is the biggest strength of neoliberalism as a political ideology. At the same time, the State does not hesitate to use its coercive mechanisms to indoctrinate these subjective identities as part and parcel of politics.

Secondly, the weakening of resistance movements by suppression of dissenting voices in a democracy. The decay of democracy is more substantial in this case than the ideological politics in the first place. The heavy-handedness of the State on dissenting voices is a death knell for democracy and consensus governance. Thirdly, it is the homogenisation of society by pushing a single political ideology, religion and a particular type of identity. This augments the cultural degradation of plurality in democracy. Fourthly, the increased militarisation of the “social” in place of democratisation with security and surveillance agencies is getting a primary stake in directing the path of governance. Fifthly, it is the undermining of political values such as freedom, liberty and rights which constitute the core of liberal democracy.

The State’s hegemony

In the neo-liberal governance regime, the State’s role has changed from regulator to facilitator of the capitalistic development process. The commodification and objectification of labour, especially in the countries of the Third World, is evident from the unregulated exploitation of surplus labour. The political project of neo-liberalism promotes the transformation of the social contract between the citizen and the State. In this, the citizen with full-fledged rights will be reduced to a consumer without any hold or say in claiming the entitled rights. Precisely, the social component of the contract becomes a business entity in the marketplace. The limitations of the market forces to deliver people’s welfare, especially the basic essentials such as education and health, especially during the health crisis situations like that of Covid-19, have deepened the State’s role in the development process.

The State’s hegemony is so strong that when a class starts exercising intellectual and moral leadership, it becomes dominant i.e. ruling class assumes the hegemonic shape to the extent that it expands its corporate interests in order to succeed in articulating the interests of other classes and different social relations and forces. The end product of this growth is that it becomes representative of the important social forces which hold the nation-state and eventually becomes a hegemonic class. All the above-mentioned changes are taking place across the globe, including in developed nations. The politics of the global south, to an extent motivated by the socialist experiments of Latin American countries, seems to be undergoing a paradigm shift. The emergence of the neoliberal regime and its expansion through a highly authoritarian governance mode is coming at the irreversible cost of liberal democracy.

(The writer is PhD Fellow, Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development of Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru)