Global governance is collapsing. The root of the problem isn’t what you think

It is ironic that the US, which led the formation of the UN and WTO, is now responsible for the breakdown of global governance and is no longer a role model for democracy.

A confluence of global forces has disrupted governance systems. Three of them are structural forces: technology, ecology and lopsided economic growth. Digital information and digitized money flow across national borders unimpeded, even as ecological disasters loom while the rich get richer and economies fail to create enough jobs and incomes for the rest.

Leaders, unwilling or unable to address these issues, are trying to cover them up with untrustworthy data on unemployment, poverty and inequality. Some are in denial of climate change, as in the US.

Gen-Z and people at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ have lost confidence in favourable outcomes, resulting in ‘populist’ movements in the US, UK, Nepal, France and elsewhere.

Solving structural problems requires an ideological refresh. Over-simplifying ideological conflicts as ‘Left versus Right’ is of no help. Deeper analysis reveals two basic conflicts in governance principles that have grown in the last century.

Tension is increasing between the principles of decision-rights in capitalism and democracy. It comes down to property rights versus human rights. In a capitalist enterprise, it is fair that who owns a million shares should have a million votes and who owns one share only one vote, whereas in a genuine democracy, all human beings must have an equal voice in the governance of their society.

Secure property rights have been a principle of good governance for millennia. The principle of equal human rights strengthened only in the last century.

There is also tension between the right of an individual to be whosoever s/he chooses to be—whatever gender, for example—and the right of a community to not just live by its norms and traditions, but also maintain its cultural identity. Such cultural identities (‘we/ours’) have shaped national and political boundaries for millennia. It is bedevilling a just two-state solution for Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

The ideology of hyper individualistic liberalism (‘I/mine’) arose in the latter part of the 20th century in the West. The conflict between the ideologies of ‘we/ours’ and ‘I/mine’ is the root cause of political conflicts between liberals/progressives and nationalists/conservatives in many countries.

Let’s listen to people who are ‘not like us’: Conflicting values are making the world ungovernable. Societies progress with the development of institutions that embody their values.

The preambles of the constitutions of India and the US, among others, say they are what “We the People” want. Written constitutions, which courts must follow, state what the will of the people was at some point in history. Even at that time, there may not have been complete agreement. Abraham Lincoln said in 1864, “We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word, we do not mean the same thing.”

The will of the people changes as ideas of human rights and liberties evolve. Therefore, good democratic governance requires a robust process for those who govern to keep listening to the people. It is people, not courts, that shape the norms—or unwritten rules—of society.

Moreover, consensus on what ‘We the People’ want, which is the foundation of all democracies, can come about only if people listen to one another. It is imperative for democracy that ‘people like us’ listen to ‘people not like us.’

Sadly, modern technology, rather than helping us understand those we may not agree with, is making it almost impossible. The ubiquity of social media is dividing people into tribes of people who think alike. They live within ideological echo chambers, with their views reinforced by other like-minded people. They hurl invective across their insulation walls at the other side, which hits back in a tit-for-tat battle of tweets and other posts.

Gen-Z is anxious about its future and unhappy with how the older generation is running the world. We saw this in how Gen-Z toppled the establishment in Nepal. As people of the same generation do not always think alike, Gen-Z is just as ideologically divided. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are of the same generation. So too Charlie Kirk and his assassin in Utah.

Multi-party electoral democracy is not designed for consensus. Elected representatives remain loyal to their own voter groups and vote in assemblies along partisan lines. The majority always wins. The system is not designed for the good of all people. Those with greater influence usually get their way.

A democracy of ‘We the People’ must rely on horizontal processes, in which citizens listen to each other and understand what others value and why, rather than vertical processes of representation. Gen-Z is more tech-addicted than older generations. What Gen-Z must learn is an ancient non-digital technology. They must put gadgets aside and listen to people they do not agree with, as Kirk had also advised.

Listen closely to what others care about—and why. Sort out differences through dialogue, not by resorting to protests and counter-protests. And absolutely not by using weapons and violence.

The author is the author of ‘Reimagining India’s Democracy: The Road to a More Equitable Society’.