An essay on

Dealing with the xenophobic sentiments in the multi-cultural and

multi-religious societies particularly the West
(Prepared by: Sir Mushtaq Mahindro)

Outline:
1. Introduction
2. Politico-economic dynamics of the world
3. Impact of the xenophobia in the West
4. Is diversity or the mere existence of different cultures a threat?
5. Socio-economic justice as a recipe for socio-political stability
End of the 20th century happened to be the severe blow to monarchies
and the military regimes as “number of electoral democracies, from early
1970s onward till 2010, increased from 35 to more than 110” (Francis
Fukuyama; Against Identity politics). The world has witnessed a
phenomenal increase in globalization of economies particularly 1980
onward. This phenomenon also resulted into reduction of poverty to a
great extent. We have observed a substantial increase in the middle class
of China, India, and many other countries of the world. This happened on
account of the shift of investment from the US and Western European
countries towards East Asia due to low labor cost involved. There was
another phenomenon attached to it. It was widening of a rich-poor gap as
benefit of economic and trade globalization flowed more towards already
wealthy, highly educated class, and people holding political power.

Opportunities to grow increased many fold as it became easier for the

money, people, goods, and technology to move around the world as a
result of globalization. This era also opened more vistas for jobs for the
womenfolk. People started leaving even their native countries in search
of better employment opportunities opened for them around the globe,
hence adding to the number of immigrants particularly in North America,
Western Europe, and Australia. The incoming of robots and Artificial
Intelligence (AI) have started replacing many human jobs but
simultaneously opening new vistas of life for those who are skilled in IT,
robotic engineering and other related subjects of science, engineering,
technology, and mathematics commonly termed as (STEM). Another
feature of this globalized era is the enormous increase in urbanization
trend as, business, educational, health, trade, and employment
opportunities are more available in the cities. Cities are turning to
megacities putting a lot of pressure on energy consumption, and demand
for housing. High energy consumption, mainly through the burning of
fossil fuels, also caused smog like problems in many parts of the world
mostly in China and India where coal is still used as a source of power
generation, and of course, adding to the emissions of greenhouse gases
resulting into global warming.
The loss of jobs in America and Western European countries due to the
mass shift of companies to East Asia created a kind of political unrest in
the western nations. The fall back of this was observed in the form of
anti-immigrant sentiments as the natives not only considered them the
equivalent of snatching jobs from them but a threat to their cultural
identity and values. These xenophobic sentiments gave way to identity
politics, the political manifestation of which we observed in the form of
Brexit and wining of election by president Trump.

When we analyze the subject of political dynamism, we find both cultural

identities and economy playing an important role but economic
considerations dominating.

We see this happening during the colonial era expansionism by the

imperialist powers of Europe during the 18th century onward. Then
fighting among themselves in the form of world war 1st and 2nd that is
within the same Western civilization. There was the formation of NATO
on one side, and the Warsaw Pact on the other respectively lead by
America and the Soviet Union in the mid-20th century. This was all
economic at the base in disguise of politics. Even at present, all political
overtures around us are dictated by the economics, for instance,
evacuation of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, and civil wars going on
in Syria and Yemen between Shia and Sunni Muslims, and before that in
Iraq. There have been ‘black lives matter’ movement in America. It is still
there to some extent as some black believe that their socio-economic
rights are not duly protected as provided under the American law.
Apparently it may look religious, ethnic or linguistic in origin but
in-depth overwhelmingly all these conflicts have deep-rooted in
economic considerations. That is either exploiting some other community
economically or getting rid of other’s exploitation.

Maximization of profits has always been there in the business

entrepreneurs. To get the Social welfare programs established employees
had to fight for a long time. In most of the cases where the writ of the
governments is weak, as in the developing countries, such facilities are
still denied to the employees even though provided under the law. This
all happened and happens in total disregard to any ethnic or cultural
affiliation.

No doubt cultural identity is a powerful socio-psychological force

origination from peoples’ in felt urge and demand for recognition. But
that urge shouldn’t be allowed to exploit those who don’t belong to the
same class. If we accept this, then there will be no one safe in this world.
Man unfortunately mostly refused to learn this lesson. That speaks why
the human history is blood bathed throughout its pages.
As regards general xenophobia in the West, we see that there has been an
assimilation of immigrants and merger of civilization as well. The
dominant cultures which are economically and militarily strong had a
significant impact on other civilizations. For instance, British during 18th
and 19th centuries’ colonial era cast a great effect on the native cultures.
We see the impact of the same till today. English as a language right from
Canada, United States, to Australia and New Zealand all the way passing
through the Indian subcontinent, the dress, the music, the eating habits,
all owe its origin in England.

If the United States happened to be a comparatively more immigrant

welcoming country that is for the reason that its foundations were laid
down by the immigrants themselves. Since these were white immigrants
from Europe almost sharing the same cultural values, therefore they
exhibited resentment against the nonwhites at occasions. America
benefited from this diversity and is still profiting by inviting immigrants
when it needs so as happened in the case of IT immigrants from China
and India during the last 20 years to establish the IT giants like Microsoft,
Facebook, and Google.

The cultural identity crisis in the United States is not that much severe as
the immigrants other than the white Europeans do not constitute more
than 25% of the population. Moreover, after the second generation, most
of the immigrants get assimilated into the American culture. However,
immigrants, who are in high number they do keep their cultural identities
intact and prefer to mix up with their cultural inmates but in no way put
any threat to the American central pillar of governance that is the rule of
law and socio-economic justice. That made America as the most
politically stable country of the world, meaning thereby that constituent
cultures or diverse religious orientations can never pose any threat to
any political entity unless its governance is not partisan or discriminative
to any of its constituent community.
 The challenges of governance and
democracy in Pakistan
Written by: Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi
www.cssexamprep.com

The July 2018 general election and installation of the newly elected
federal and provincial governments in August boosted the prospects of
democracy in Pakistan. This was the fourth general election since 2002,
when General Pervez Musharraf held carefully managed elections to
civilianize his military rule by installing an elected government. The
subsequent polls in February 2008 and May 2013 brought in purely
political governments. On all of these occasions political power shifted
from one set of political leaders to another.

The 2018 elections reinforced these democratic trends, as Pakistan

Tehrik-i-Insaf for the first time won seats in all four provinces. It
assumed power at the federal level, another first for PTI, in addition to
setting up governments in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, and
sharing power in Balochistan. Though other parties complained that
the elections were rigged, most independent observers described the
elections as orderly, peaceful and fair. The failure of the electronic
Result Transmission System delayed the announcement of the result
but there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this was a deliberate
attempt to manipulate the outcome.

Elections are integral to the democratic process but that is not the only
requirement for democracy. The legitimacy of elections has to be
supplemented by performance legitimacy in terms of governance and
political management on the part of the government, and a continuing
observance of tolerance in society. Pakistan falters on these
counts. The competing political interests have not fully imbibed the
democratic culture and they often display social and religious
intolerance.

We have observed over the years that if democratic institutions and

processes do not deliver an outcome of one’s choice, there is a
tendency to question the legitimacy of the democratic process. In the
case of the 2018 vote, a number of political parties talked about
election rigging in the constituencies where they lost — but they did
not question the results where they won.

The legitimacy of elections in Pakistan has to be supplemented by

performance legitimacy in terms of governance and political
management on the part of the government.
The second criterion on which to judge the quality of democracy is the
degree to which the political elite in general, and the government in
particular, can continue to claim the voluntary loyalty of the people.
This is possible if the elected government successfully delivers basic
services such as education, health care, clean drinking water, and
employment opportunities for the nation’s youth. Currently, the
quality of these services delivered by a succession of governments has
ranged from satisfactory to poor. There are areas in which the state is
unable to provide satisfactory education and health-care facilities. The
new PTI federal government is working on plans to address these
issues. Hopefully, their promises to work for the betterment of the
common people will start to bear fruit in six to eight months. If they fail
to do so, disappointment and political alienation will begin to set in
among the common people.

The third challenge for the new government relates to the fact that it
has inherited a troubled economy. The problems include a
current-account deficit, a trade imbalance to the disadvantage of
Pakistan, a budget deficit, tax collection issues, and international and
domestic debts. Pakistan is stuck in such a debt trap that it will find it
difficult to manage it unless thoughtful solutions are developed. This is
a difficult but not impossible task. Some state institutions — such as
the steel mill, Pakistan’s national airlines and railways, and projects
such as the new transport system introduced by the previous Pakistan
Muslim League-Nawaz government in Lahore, Multan and
Rawalpindi-Islamabad — have become major financial drains on the
country. How can these be made financially viable?

Another economy-related issue pertains to the “youth bulge.” More

than 60 percent of Pakistan’s population is under the age of 35. Those
in the 18-to-30 age range aspire to becoming part of the political and
economic system by seeking gainful employment. However, the
economy is currently not in a position to accommodate these youths,
who face despair and instead seek to leave the country — by legal and
illegal means.

Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government recognizes these problems

and promises to address the challenges effectively. In its first month of
governance, it has made several ambitious announcements of plans for
a reduction of government expenses, the collection of domestic
revenue, improvements to education and health-care facilities, and the
provision of housing for the poor and job opportunities based on merit.
This is a tall order. The performance of the government on these issues
will determine the long-term political future of the new ruling party —
and whether or not the people’s attachment and engagement with the
democratic system is sustainable.
What’s gone wrong with democracy? (Source: The Economist)
The protesters who have overturned the politics of Ukraine have many
aspirations for their country. Their placards called for closer relations
with the European Union (EU), an end to Russian intervention in
Ukraine’s politics and the establishment of a clean government to
replace the kleptocracy of President Viktor Yanukovych. But their
fundamental demand is one that has motivated people over many
decades to take a stand against corrupt, abusive and autocratic
governments. They want a rules-based democracy.

It is easy to understand why. Democracies are on average richer

than non-democracies, are less likely to go to war and have a better
record of fighting corruption. More fundamentally, democracy lets
people speak their minds and shape their own and their children’s
futures. That so many people in so many different parts of the world
are prepared to risk so much for this idea is testimony to its enduring
appeal.

Yet these days the exhilaration generated by events like those in

Kiev is mixed with anxiety, for a troubling pattern has repeated itself in
capital after capital. The people mass in the main square.
Regime-sanctioned thugs try to fight back but lose their nerve in the
face of popular intransigence and global news coverage. The world
applauds the collapse of the regime and offers to help build a
democracy. But turfing out an autocrat turns out to be much easier
than setting up a viable democratic government. The new regime
stumbles, the economy flounders and the country finds itself in a state
at least as bad as it was before. This is what happened in much of the
Arab spring, and also in Ukraine’s Orange revolution a decade ago. In
2004 Mr Yanukovych was ousted from office by vast street protests,
only to be re-elected to the presidency (with the help of huge amounts
of Russian money) in 2010, after the opposition politicians who
replaced him turned out to be just as hopeless.

Democracy is going through a difficult time. Where autocrats

have been driven out of office, their opponents have mostly failed to
create viable democratic regimes. Even in established democracies,
flaws in the system have become worryingly visible and disillusion
with politics is rife. Yet just a few years ago democracy looked as
though it would dominate the world.

In the second half of the 20th century, democracies had taken

root in the most difficult circumstances possible—in Germany, which
had been traumatised by Nazism, in India, which had the world’s
largest population of poor people, and, in the 1990s, in South Africa,
which had been disfigured by apartheid. Decolonialisation created a
host of new democracies in Africa and Asia, and autocratic regimes
gave way to democracy in Greece (1974), Spain (1975), Argentina
(1983), Brazil (1985) and Chile (1989). The collapse of the Soviet
Union created many fledgling democracies in central Europe. By 2000
Freedom House, an American think-tank, classified 120 countries, or
63% of the world total, as democracies.

Representatives of more than 100 countries gathered at the

World Forum on Democracy in Warsaw that year to proclaim that “the
will of the people” was “the basis of the authority of government”. A
report issued by America’s State Department declared that having seen
off “failed experiments” with authoritarian and totalitarian forms of
government, “it seems that now, at long last, democracy is
triumphant.”

Such hubris was surely understandable after such a run of

successes. But stand farther back and the triumph of democracy looks
rather less inevitable. After the fall of Athens, where it was first
developed, the political model had lain dormant until the
Enlightenment more than 2,000 years later. In the 18th century only
the American revolution produced a sustainable democracy.

During the 19th century monarchists fought a prolonged

rearguard action against democratic forces. In the first half of the 20th
century nascent democracies collapsed in Germany, Spain and Italy. By
1941 there were only 11 democracies left, and Franklin Roosevelt
worried that it might not be possible to shield “the great flame of
democracy from the blackout of barbarism”.