How Democracy can Exacerbate Anti-Minority Bigotry
Recently, the world has the reputation of Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto popularly elected leader of Myanmar, hit another low at the Hague the past week with her highly anticipated hearing on the country's treatment of its Muslim refugee issue. Aung San Suu Kyi likely lost the last of her supporters in the West by refusing to apologize for the state's role in systematically driving the Rohingya out of the country through rape and murder, instead only recognizing the excess of some soldiers and that the overall situation is "complex." She made no mention of the Rohingya by name and refuse to recognize them as legal citizens of the country.
The popular opposition Aung San Suu Kyi found at the Hague marks another episode of her steady decline in Western public opinion, with increasing calls for her Nobel Peace Prize to be rescinded. Yet, back home in Myanmar, the Burmese Buddhist majority of the country has thrown almost unequivocal support behind Aung San Suu Kyi. Online commentary from the Burmese sees the leader as both a defender of Myanmar against Western hypocrisy and unsubstantiated bias, as well as a continuing symbol of the country's democratic transformation that the West so praised just a few years ago.
The Burmese are certainly not the only majoritarian population taking advantage of a functioning democracy to marginalize a minority population. India has seen the rise of a more activist strand of Hindu nationalism in recent years, most visibly symbolized by the popular support for removal of special autonomous status granted to the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir as well as a new citizenship-proving exercises that have saw Muslims living in the country suddenly stripped of citizenship rights after generations living in India. Combined with the new Citizenship Amendment Bill that grants fast-tracked citizenship to all refugees from neighboring countries except Muslims, the democratic opposition to Islam in India is in place.
The examples of anti-Muslim policies in India and Myanmar differ much from the equally anti-Muslim detention of Uyghurs by the Chinese government. While the Chinese government's actions receive or seek no support from the general (non-Muslim) Chinese public, Indian and Burmese governments have enacted and proceeded with implementing their respective policies supposedly with the support of the majority of people. In a democratic regime, the majority's overt support for a policy is enough to legitimate the actions, even if the same policy receives negative reception broad.
Worse, democratically elected leaders like Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and Aung San Suu Kyi are primarily answerable to a voting domestic audience and the ballet box for them and their respective parties to stay in power. Even if they are morally and politically opposed to policies that go against the basic human right of the minorities being repressed, they are incentivized to hide those personal preferences and move in a way that satisfies the electorate. The democratic mandate, in a way, encourages democratically elected leaders to be hypocritical to act following what their people want, no what they think is right.
Ultimately, the fact that Indian and Burmese democracies have led to anti-Muslim policies is not a reflection that the countries elected leaders who are anti-Muslim, but the countries' respective educational systems have failed to create a national culture that narrowly defines national identity in terms of ethnicity or religious beliefs. When children are introduced to bigotry from a young age and grow up surrounded by people with similar beliefs, they become adults who vote for politicians that enact policies that are consistent with the bigoted ideas that they have held for decades.
Hence, to create a more inclusive democracy, the first task is to create an educational system that teaches the youths to become more inclusive. Unfortunately, given that the democratically elected government also devises educational policies, a nationalist government cannot simply shift educational curricula away from narrow-minded nationalism without negative political repercussions for itself. Without the incentive to change the nationalist message ingrained in education for the next generation, it is perceivable that the violent exclusion of embattled minorities will continue unabated across generations.
To break the depressing cycle, pressure from outside the system must be introduced. The most basic is to create popular awareness of foreign events and policies, not to mention the suffering of minorities that are often underreported in national media. A population that cares more about what others think and reports on is more likely to reflect on the negative aspects of nationalism. More importantly, continued condemnation of anti-minority policies must be backed up by real pains. Sanctions against regimes that enact such policies will show its people that a real price in the wallet and international prestige must be paid for bigotry.
The popular opposition Aung San Suu Kyi found at the Hague marks another episode of her steady decline in Western public opinion, with increasing calls for her Nobel Peace Prize to be rescinded. Yet, back home in Myanmar, the Burmese Buddhist majority of the country has thrown almost unequivocal support behind Aung San Suu Kyi. Online commentary from the Burmese sees the leader as both a defender of Myanmar against Western hypocrisy and unsubstantiated bias, as well as a continuing symbol of the country's democratic transformation that the West so praised just a few years ago.
The Burmese are certainly not the only majoritarian population taking advantage of a functioning democracy to marginalize a minority population. India has seen the rise of a more activist strand of Hindu nationalism in recent years, most visibly symbolized by the popular support for removal of special autonomous status granted to the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir as well as a new citizenship-proving exercises that have saw Muslims living in the country suddenly stripped of citizenship rights after generations living in India. Combined with the new Citizenship Amendment Bill that grants fast-tracked citizenship to all refugees from neighboring countries except Muslims, the democratic opposition to Islam in India is in place.
The examples of anti-Muslim policies in India and Myanmar differ much from the equally anti-Muslim detention of Uyghurs by the Chinese government. While the Chinese government's actions receive or seek no support from the general (non-Muslim) Chinese public, Indian and Burmese governments have enacted and proceeded with implementing their respective policies supposedly with the support of the majority of people. In a democratic regime, the majority's overt support for a policy is enough to legitimate the actions, even if the same policy receives negative reception broad.
Worse, democratically elected leaders like Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and Aung San Suu Kyi are primarily answerable to a voting domestic audience and the ballet box for them and their respective parties to stay in power. Even if they are morally and politically opposed to policies that go against the basic human right of the minorities being repressed, they are incentivized to hide those personal preferences and move in a way that satisfies the electorate. The democratic mandate, in a way, encourages democratically elected leaders to be hypocritical to act following what their people want, no what they think is right.
Ultimately, the fact that Indian and Burmese democracies have led to anti-Muslim policies is not a reflection that the countries elected leaders who are anti-Muslim, but the countries' respective educational systems have failed to create a national culture that narrowly defines national identity in terms of ethnicity or religious beliefs. When children are introduced to bigotry from a young age and grow up surrounded by people with similar beliefs, they become adults who vote for politicians that enact policies that are consistent with the bigoted ideas that they have held for decades.
Hence, to create a more inclusive democracy, the first task is to create an educational system that teaches the youths to become more inclusive. Unfortunately, given that the democratically elected government also devises educational policies, a nationalist government cannot simply shift educational curricula away from narrow-minded nationalism without negative political repercussions for itself. Without the incentive to change the nationalist message ingrained in education for the next generation, it is perceivable that the violent exclusion of embattled minorities will continue unabated across generations.
To break the depressing cycle, pressure from outside the system must be introduced. The most basic is to create popular awareness of foreign events and policies, not to mention the suffering of minorities that are often underreported in national media. A population that cares more about what others think and reports on is more likely to reflect on the negative aspects of nationalism. More importantly, continued condemnation of anti-minority policies must be backed up by real pains. Sanctions against regimes that enact such policies will show its people that a real price in the wallet and international prestige must be paid for bigotry.
Comments
Post a Comment