From The Economist
Seventy years ago the Indian rupee was often found a long way from home. After India gained independence from Britain, the currency remained in use in sheikhdoms across the Arabian Sea. Until as late as 1970, some employed the Gulf rupee, a currency issued by India’s central bank.
Today the picture is rather different. The rupee accounts for less than 2% of international-currency transactions, even though the Indian economy is the world’s fifth-largest. Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, would like to see the currency span the globe once again. Speaking at the 90th anniversary of the Reserve Bank of India on April 1st, Mr Modi told the central bank’s policymakers to focus on making the rupee more accessible. Historically, however, national leaders have been a lot more likely to express enthusiasm for the idea of making their currency a global one than to enact the reforms required to do so.
Although the American dollar is the undisputed king of currencies, there are many with a global role of their own. The euro, the British pound, the Swiss franc, and the dollars of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore are all examples. These currencies are found in foreign reserves and private portfolios worldwide, and used for both trade and financial transactions. In theory, there is no reason why the rupee should not join the illustrious group.
Having a widely used currency brings sizeable benefits. Demand from overseas investors lowers financing costs for domestic companies, which are no longer compelled to borrow in foreign currencies. Such demand also reduces exchange-rate risks for exporters and importers, who do not need to convert currencies so often when trading, and enables the government to reduce the size of its foreign-exchange reserves.
Some of the foundation stones of an international currency are being laid in India. The country now has assets that foreigners want to buy, making the rupee a potential store of value overseas. In September JPMorgan Chase, a bank, announced that it would include Indian government bonds in its emerging-market index. Bloomberg, a data provider, took the same decision last month. The explosive performance of the country’s stocks, which are up by 37% in dollar terms over the past year, has piqued global interest.
The rupee is also increasingly a unit of account and a medium of exchange for foreigners. Banks from 22 countries have been permitted to open special rupee-denominated accounts, without the usual exchange limits. In August India made its first rupee payment for oil, to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.
Yet China shows how far India has to go. Although Chinese policymakers have been trying to make the yuan a global currency for more than a decade, it still accounts for less than 3% of international trades made via swift, a payments network, outside the euro zone, despite the fact that China accounts for 17% of global gdp. Moreover, 80% of such international yuan transactions occur in Hong Kong. China’s relatively closed capital account, which prevents investments from flowing freely across its borders, is the main obstacle to wider use of its currency. India’s capital account is less closed than it once was, but is still far more sheltered than that of any of the countries with a global currency.
Japan provides a better example. In 1970 it accounted for 7% of global gdp—more than the 4% it does now—and its companies were beginning to make a mark abroad. But the yen was a nonentity. That changed over the following decade: in 1970, 1% of Japan’s exports were invoiced in yen; by the early 1980s, 40% were. In 1989 the yen made up 28% of all foreign-exchange transactions. It still accounts for 16% today.
To make the leap to global-currency status, Japan’s leaders had to transform the country’s economy. They allowed foreigners to hold a wide range of assets, deregulated big financial institutions, and peeled back controls on capital flows and interest rates. These changes disrupted Japan’s export-oriented economic model, and undermined the power of the country’s bureaucrats.
Changes just as far-reaching—and uncomfortable—will be required for any country that now wants to join the top table. Few seem to have the stomach for them at present. Indeed, without American pressure and the threat of tariffs, Japan itself might not have made such reforms. America is not about to lean on India in the same way. The desire for change will have to come from within.
“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe. “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer
Search This Blog
Tuesday 9 April 2024
Economics for Non Economists: The Legal Fictions essential for Capitalism
Source: Perplexity.AI
What does legal fiction mean? Isn't property rights legal fiction?
Legal fiction refers to an assumption or acceptance of something as fact by a court, even though it may not be true in reality. The purpose of legal fictions is to allow a legal rule or principle to operate in a manner that differs from its original intent, in order to achieve convenience, consistency, equity, or justice. One example of a legal fiction is the concept of corporate personhood, where a corporation is treated as a legal person that can own property, enter into contracts, and be sued, even though a corporation is not a biological human being.
How is legal fiction used in property rights?
Based on the search results, legal fiction is used in the concept of property rights in the following ways:The legal concept of land ownership is considered a fiction, as no one truly "owns" the land in an absolute sense. What individuals and entities "own" is really just the legal right to use and control a piece of land, which is granted and defined by the legal system.
Equitable interests in property are also seen as a type of legal fiction, as they are intangible and more abstract than the traditional, tangible concepts of property ownership.
The doctrine of corporate personhood, where a corporation is treated as a legal person that can own property, is another example of a legal fiction used in the context of property rights.
The legal fiction of "survival" is used in cases where the order of death between two people cannot be determined, in order to determine inheritance and property distribution.
Who decides what legal fictions need to be created?
Based on the detailed search results provided, it appears that the creation and use of legal fictions is primarily determined by the courts and the legal system, rather than any single individual or entity:The search results indicate that legal fictions are "facts assumed or created by courts, which are then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule." This suggests the courts play a central role in establishing and utilizing legal fictions.
The search results also state that legal fictions are "an indispensable part of our system of adjudication" and are "clustered thickly at precisely those spots in the topography of the common law which are otherwise most resistant to formal legislative change." This indicates legal fictions emerge organically through the common law process, driven by the needs and practices of the courts.
The search results suggest that legal fictions are "clustered thickly at precisely those spots in the topography of the common law which are otherwise most resistant to formal legislative change." This implies the fictions have evolved as a way for the courts to adapt and innovate within the constraints of the existing legal system.
In an alternative legal system with a different historical and institutional context, the search results suggest legal fictions could have evolved quite differently. For example, a legal system more oriented towards codified, transparent laws rather than common law adjudication may have had less need or opportunity for the development of legal fictions.
Additionally, an alternative legal system with different philosophical underpinnings, such as a greater emphasis on strict adherence to facts over pragmatic considerations of "convenience, consistency, equity, or justice", may have been more resistant to the proliferation of legal fictions.
Who are the winners and losers from an acceptance of the current legal fictions?
Based on the detailed search results provided, the key winners and losers from the acceptance of the current legal fictions that underpin capitalism and the modern economic system would be:
Advocates for reform - The search results suggest that legal fictions can make it difficult to achieve formal legislative change, as they are "clustered thickly" in areas resistant to change.
Critics of legal fictions - Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham who were highly critical of legal fictions and saw them as obscuring the law and enabling judicial manipulation would be considered "losers" in the current system.
So in summary, the key winners appear to be powerful corporate and economic actors who benefit from the legal fictions, while the losers tend to be the general public, marginalized groups, and those seeking reform or challenging the status quo.
What does legal fiction mean? Isn't property rights legal fiction?
Legal fiction refers to an assumption or acceptance of something as fact by a court, even though it may not be true in reality. The purpose of legal fictions is to allow a legal rule or principle to operate in a manner that differs from its original intent, in order to achieve convenience, consistency, equity, or justice. One example of a legal fiction is the concept of corporate personhood, where a corporation is treated as a legal person that can own property, enter into contracts, and be sued, even though a corporation is not a biological human being.
Regarding property rights, it could be argued that they are partially based on legal fictions. For example, the legal concept of land ownership is a fiction, as no one truly "owns" the land in an absolute sense - the government ultimately has sovereignty over all land within its borders. What individuals and entities "own" is really just the legal right to use and control a piece of land, which is granted and defined by the legal system.
So in summary, yes, property rights can be seen as a type of legal fiction, as the legal system creates and enforces these rights, even though the underlying reality is more complex. Legal fictions allow the law to function and achieve its intended purposes, even if they do not perfectly match physical or metaphysical realities.
How is legal fiction used in property rights?
Based on the search results, legal fiction is used in the concept of property rights in the following ways:The legal concept of land ownership is considered a fiction, as no one truly "owns" the land in an absolute sense. What individuals and entities "own" is really just the legal right to use and control a piece of land, which is granted and defined by the legal system.
Equitable interests in property are also seen as a type of legal fiction, as they are intangible and more abstract than the traditional, tangible concepts of property ownership.
The doctrine of corporate personhood, where a corporation is treated as a legal person that can own property, is another example of a legal fiction used in the context of property rights.
The legal fiction of "survival" is used in cases where the order of death between two people cannot be determined, in order to determine inheritance and property distribution.
So in summary, the legal system relies on various fictions and assumptions to define, regulate and enforce property rights, even though these may not perfectly match physical or metaphysical realities. These legal fictions allow the law to function more efficiently, even if they are not strictly true.
What about human ownership of labour - isn't it a legal fiction? Or the definition of humans, slaves and animals?
Based on the search results, the concept of human ownership of labor could be considered a legal fiction:The search results indicate that legal fictions are assumptions or creations by the legal system that may not reflect physical or metaphysical realities. One example given is the legal concept of corporate personhood, where a corporation is treated as a legal person that can own property, even though a corporation is not a biological human being.
What about human ownership of labour - isn't it a legal fiction? Or the definition of humans, slaves and animals?
Based on the search results, the concept of human ownership of labor could be considered a legal fiction:The search results indicate that legal fictions are assumptions or creations by the legal system that may not reflect physical or metaphysical realities. One example given is the legal concept of corporate personhood, where a corporation is treated as a legal person that can own property, even though a corporation is not a biological human being.
Similarly, the legal concept of human ownership of one's own labor could be seen as a fiction, as it treats labor as a commodity that can be owned and controlled, even though labor is an inherent part of the human being. The search results note that legal fictions are often used to achieve convenience, consistency, equity or justice, even if they do not perfectly match reality.
Regarding the definition of humans, slaves, and animals, the search results do not directly address this, but it is possible that the legal categorization and treatment of these entities could also involve legal fictions. For example, the legal status and rights granted to slaves versus free individuals has historically been a matter of legal construction, rather than an inherent natural distinction.
Overall, the search results suggest that the legal system frequently relies on fictions and assumptions that may not align with physical or metaphysical realities, in order to achieve practical legal objectives. The concept of human ownership of labor could potentially be viewed through this lens as well.
Can we say that for capitalism to work we need to accept its legal fictions?
Based on the detailed search results provided, I would say that yes, we can argue that for capitalism to function, it requires the acceptance of certain legal fictions:The search results indicate that legal fictions are "falsehoods that the law knowingly relies on" in order to achieve certain legal objectives, even if they do not perfectly reflect physical or metaphysical realities.
Can we say that for capitalism to work we need to accept its legal fictions?
Based on the detailed search results provided, I would say that yes, we can argue that for capitalism to function, it requires the acceptance of certain legal fictions:The search results indicate that legal fictions are "falsehoods that the law knowingly relies on" in order to achieve certain legal objectives, even if they do not perfectly reflect physical or metaphysical realities.
Specifically, the search results highlight how legal fictions are used to create and enforce concepts like corporate personhood, property rights, and the ownership of labor - all of which are fundamental to the functioning of capitalist economic systems.
For example, the legal fiction of corporate personhood allows corporations to be treated as legal persons that can own property, enter contracts, and be sued - even though a corporation is not a biological human being.
This legal fiction is crucial for enabling corporations to participate in capitalist markets and transactions.Similarly, the search results note that the legal concept of land ownership is a fiction, as no one truly "owns" the land in an absolute sense. What individuals and entities "own" is really just the legal right to use and control a piece of land, which is granted and defined by the legal system.
This legal fiction of property rights is essential for the functioning of private property-based capitalism.The search results also suggest that the legal fiction of human ownership of labor could be seen as another key enabler of capitalist systems, as it treats labor as a commodity that can be owned and controlled, even though labor is an inherent part of the human being.
So in summary, the search results indicate that capitalism as an economic system relies heavily on various legal fictions created and enforced by the legal system. Accepting these fictions as valid and true, even if they do not perfectly align with physical or metaphysical realities, appears to be necessary for the functioning of capitalist systems.
What would happen if we did not accept the legal fictions?
Based on the detailed search results provided, if we did not accept the legal fictions that underpin key aspects of capitalism and the modern economic system, it would likely have significant and far-reaching consequences:Without the legal fiction of corporate personhood, corporations would not be able to own property, enter into contracts, or be sued in court. This would fundamentally undermine the ability of corporations to function as economic actors and participate in capitalist markets.
Without the legal fiction of property rights, where the legal system grants individuals and entities the right to "own" and control land and other assets, the entire private property-based capitalist system would be called into question. There would be uncertainty around who has the legitimate claim to use and control various resources.
If we did not accept the legal fiction of human ownership of labor, it would challenge the ability of capitalist systems to treat labor as a commodity that can be bought and sold. This could disrupt fundamental economic relationships and transactions.
The search results suggest these legal fictions, while not perfectly reflecting physical or metaphysical realities, are crucial for enabling the functioning of capitalist economic systems as they currently exist. Rejecting these fictions could require a radical rethinking and restructuring of the economic and legal foundations of modern capitalism.
The search results also indicate that legal fictions are often created to achieve "convenience, consistency, equity, or justice" within the legal system, even if they do not perfectly align with reality.
What would happen if we did not accept the legal fictions?
Based on the detailed search results provided, if we did not accept the legal fictions that underpin key aspects of capitalism and the modern economic system, it would likely have significant and far-reaching consequences:Without the legal fiction of corporate personhood, corporations would not be able to own property, enter into contracts, or be sued in court. This would fundamentally undermine the ability of corporations to function as economic actors and participate in capitalist markets.
Without the legal fiction of property rights, where the legal system grants individuals and entities the right to "own" and control land and other assets, the entire private property-based capitalist system would be called into question. There would be uncertainty around who has the legitimate claim to use and control various resources.
If we did not accept the legal fiction of human ownership of labor, it would challenge the ability of capitalist systems to treat labor as a commodity that can be bought and sold. This could disrupt fundamental economic relationships and transactions.
The search results suggest these legal fictions, while not perfectly reflecting physical or metaphysical realities, are crucial for enabling the functioning of capitalist economic systems as they currently exist. Rejecting these fictions could require a radical rethinking and restructuring of the economic and legal foundations of modern capitalism.
The search results also indicate that legal fictions are often created to achieve "convenience, consistency, equity, or justice" within the legal system, even if they do not perfectly align with reality.
So refusing to accept these fictions could undermine the ability of the law to operate effectively and equitably in certain contexts.Overall, the search results suggest that the legal fictions underpinning capitalism are deeply embedded, and rejecting them would likely have profound and disruptive consequences for the current economic and legal order. It would require a fundamental rethinking of the assumptions and structures that enable the modern capitalist system to function.
Based on the detailed search results provided, it appears that the creation and use of legal fictions is primarily determined by the courts and the legal system, rather than any single individual or entity:The search results indicate that legal fictions are "facts assumed or created by courts, which are then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule." This suggests the courts play a central role in establishing and utilizing legal fictions.
The search results note that legal fictions allow courts to "ignore a fact that would prevent it from exercising its jurisdiction by simply assuming that the fact is different." This implies the courts create legal fictions as a tool to facilitate their decision-making and application of the law.
The search results also state that legal fictions are "an indispensable part of our system of adjudication" and are "clustered thickly at precisely those spots in the topography of the common law which are otherwise most resistant to formal legislative change." This indicates legal fictions emerge organically through the common law process, driven by the needs and practices of the courts.
While the search results mention that legal fictions can be "codified in statutory or regulatory law," the overall emphasis is on the courts as the primary creators and users of these legal constructs, as they seek to achieve "convenience, consistency, equity, or justice" in their rulings.
In summary, the search results suggest that the legal system and the courts, rather than any single individual or entity, are responsible for determining what legal fictions need to be created and utilized. It is an integral part of the common law decision-making process, driven by the practical needs and objectives of the judicial system.
Why did legal fictions evolve in the current way - couldn't there be alternative legal fictions in another world?
Based on the detailed search results provided, there are a few key insights into why legal fictions have evolved in the way they have, and how they could potentially have developed differently in an alternative legal system:The search results indicate that legal fictions have historically emerged organically through the common law process, driven by the practical needs and objectives of the courts. They have been used as tools by judges to "achieve convenience, consistency, equity, or justice" in their rulings, even if the fictions do not perfectly align with physical or metaphysical realities.
Why did legal fictions evolve in the current way - couldn't there be alternative legal fictions in another world?
Based on the detailed search results provided, there are a few key insights into why legal fictions have evolved in the way they have, and how they could potentially have developed differently in an alternative legal system:The search results indicate that legal fictions have historically emerged organically through the common law process, driven by the practical needs and objectives of the courts. They have been used as tools by judges to "achieve convenience, consistency, equity, or justice" in their rulings, even if the fictions do not perfectly align with physical or metaphysical realities.
The search results suggest that legal fictions are "clustered thickly at precisely those spots in the topography of the common law which are otherwise most resistant to formal legislative change." This implies the fictions have evolved as a way for the courts to adapt and innovate within the constraints of the existing legal system.
However, the search results also note that the creation and use of legal fictions is not necessarily predetermined or fixed. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham, for example, was highly critical of legal fictions, seeing them as obscuring the law and enabling judicial manipulation.
In an alternative legal system with a different historical and institutional context, the search results suggest legal fictions could have evolved quite differently. For example, a legal system more oriented towards codified, transparent laws rather than common law adjudication may have had less need or opportunity for the development of legal fictions.
Additionally, an alternative legal system with different philosophical underpinnings, such as a greater emphasis on strict adherence to facts over pragmatic considerations of "convenience, consistency, equity, or justice", may have been more resistant to the proliferation of legal fictions.
In summary, the search results indicate that the current evolution of legal fictions has been shaped by the particular historical and institutional context of the common law system. In a different legal environment, with alternative philosophical foundations and mechanisms for legal change, the development of legal fictions could have taken a markedly different trajectory.
Based on the detailed search results provided, the key winners and losers from the acceptance of the current legal fictions that underpin capitalism and the modern economic system would be:
Winners:
Corporations - The legal fiction of corporate personhood allows corporations to be treated as legal persons that can own property, enter contracts, and be sued. This grants corporations significant legal rights and powers.
Wealthy individuals and entities - The legal fictions around property rights and ownership of assets allow the wealthy to accumulate and protect their wealth and assets through the legal system.
Lawyers and the legal profession - The search results suggest that private lawyers, operating outside of democratic institutions, end up shaping many of the legal fictions and rules that govern the economic system.
Losers:
Wealthy individuals and entities - The legal fictions around property rights and ownership of assets allow the wealthy to accumulate and protect their wealth and assets through the legal system.
Lawyers and the legal profession - The search results suggest that private lawyers, operating outside of democratic institutions, end up shaping many of the legal fictions and rules that govern the economic system.
Losers:
The general public - The search results indicate that the legal fictions underpinning capitalism contribute to wealth inequality and financial crises that negatively impact the broader population.
Marginalized groups - The legal categorization and treatment of entities like slaves versus free individuals, as well as the legal fiction of human ownership of labor, have historically disadvantaged marginalized groups.
Marginalized groups - The legal categorization and treatment of entities like slaves versus free individuals, as well as the legal fiction of human ownership of labor, have historically disadvantaged marginalized groups.
Advocates for reform - The search results suggest that legal fictions can make it difficult to achieve formal legislative change, as they are "clustered thickly" in areas resistant to change.
Critics of legal fictions - Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham who were highly critical of legal fictions and saw them as obscuring the law and enabling judicial manipulation would be considered "losers" in the current system.
So in summary, the key winners appear to be powerful corporate and economic actors who benefit from the legal fictions, while the losers tend to be the general public, marginalized groups, and those seeking reform or challenging the status quo.
Monday 8 April 2024
Sunday 7 April 2024
Never meet your hero!
Nadeem F Paracha in The Dawn
The German writer J Wolfgang Goethe once quipped, “Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes.” As if to expand upon Goethe’s words, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer wrote, “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.”
There is every likelihood that Goethe was viewing societies as collectives, in which self-interest was the primary motivation but where the creation and worship of ‘heroes’ are acts to make people feel virtuous.
Heroes can’t become heroes without an audience. A segment of the society exhibits an individual and explains his or her actions or traits as ‘heroic’. If these receive enough applause, a hero is created. But then no one is really interested in knowing the actual person who has been turned into a hero. Only his mythologised sides are to be viewed.
The mythologising is done to quench a yearning in society — a yearning that cannot be fulfilled because it might be too impractical, utopian, irrational and, therefore, against self-interest. So, the mythologised individual becomes an alter ego of a society conscious of its inherent flaws. Great effort is thus invested in hiding the actual from the gaze of society, so that only the mythologised can be viewed.
One often comes across videos on social media of common everyday people doing virtuous deeds, such as helping an old person cross a busy road, or helping an animal. The helping hands in this regard are exhibited as ‘heroes’, even though they might not even be aware that they are being filmed.
What if they weren’t? What if they remain unaware about the applause that their ‘viral video’ has attracted? Will they stop being helpful without having an audience? They certainly won’t be hailed as heroes. They are often exhibited as heroes by those who want to use them to signal their own appreciative attitude towards ‘goodness’.
This is a harmless ploy. But since self-interest is rampant in almost every society, this can push some people to mould themselves as heroes. There have been cases in which men and women have actually staged certain ‘heroic’ acts, filmed them, and then put them out for all to view. The purpose is to generate praise and accolades for themselves and, when possible, even monetary gains.
But it is also possible that they truly want to be seen as heroes in an unheroic age, despite displaying forged heroism. Then there are those who are so smitten by the romanticised notions of a ‘heroic age’ that they actually plunge into real-life scenarios to quench their intense yearning to be seen as heroes.
For example, a person who voluntarily sticks his neck out for a cause that may lead to his arrest. He knows this. But he also knows that there will be many on social and electronic media who will begin to portray him as a hero. But the applauders often do this to signal their own disposition towards a ‘heroic’ cause.
We apparently live in an unheroic age — an age that philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche or, for that matter, Muhammad Iqbal, detested. Each had their own understanding of a bygone heroic age.
To Nietzsche, the heroic age existed in some pre-modern period in history, when the Germanic people were fearless. To Iqbal, the heroic age was when early Muslims were powered by an unadulterated faith and passion to conquer the world. There are multiple periods in time that are referred to as ‘heroic ages’, depending on one’s favourite ideology or professed faith.
The yearning for heroes and the penchant for creating them to be revered — so that societies can feel better about themselves — is as old as when the first major civilisations began to appear, thousands of years ago. So when they spoke of heroic ages, what period of history were they reminiscing about — the Stone Age?
Humans are naturally pragmatic. From hunter-gatherers, we became scavenger-survivalists. The image may be off-putting but the latter actually requires one to be more rational, clever and pragmatic. This is how we have survived and progressed.
That ancient yearning for a heroic age has remained, though. An age that never was — an age that was always an imagined one. That’s why we even mythologise known histories, because the actual in this regard can be awkward to deal with. But it is possible to unfold.
America’s ‘founding fathers’ were revered for over two centuries as untainted heroes, until some historians decided to demystify them by exploring their lives outside their mythologised imaginings. Many of these heroes turned out to be slave-owners and not very pleasant people.
Mahatma Gandhi, revered as a symbol of tolerance, turned out to also be a man who disliked black South Africans. The founder of Pakistan MA Jinnah is mythologised as a man who supposedly strived to create an ‘Islamic state’, yet the fact is that he was a declared liberal and loved his wine. Martin Luther King Jr, the revered black rights activist, was also a prolific philanderer.
When freed from mythology, the heroes become human — still important men and women, but with various flaws. This is when they become real and more relatable. They become ‘anti-heroes.’
But there is always an urgency in societies to keep the flaws hidden. The flaws can damage the emotions that are invested in revering ‘heroes’, both dead and living. The act of revering provides an opportunity to feel bigger than a scavenger-survivor, even if this requires forged memories and heavily mythologised men and women.
Therefore, hero-worship can also make one blurt out even the most absurd things to keep a popular but distorted memory of a perceived hero intact. For example, this is exactly what one populist former Pakistani prime minister did when he declared that the terrorist Osama bin Laden was a martyr.
By doing this, the former PM was signalling his own ‘heroism’ as well — that of a proud fool who saw greatness in a mass murderer to signal his own ‘greatness’ in an unheroic age.
The French philosopher Voltaire viewed this tendency as a chain that one has fallen in love with. Voltaire wrote, “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”
The German writer J Wolfgang Goethe once quipped, “Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes.” As if to expand upon Goethe’s words, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer wrote, “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.”
There is every likelihood that Goethe was viewing societies as collectives, in which self-interest was the primary motivation but where the creation and worship of ‘heroes’ are acts to make people feel virtuous.
Heroes can’t become heroes without an audience. A segment of the society exhibits an individual and explains his or her actions or traits as ‘heroic’. If these receive enough applause, a hero is created. But then no one is really interested in knowing the actual person who has been turned into a hero. Only his mythologised sides are to be viewed.
The mythologising is done to quench a yearning in society — a yearning that cannot be fulfilled because it might be too impractical, utopian, irrational and, therefore, against self-interest. So, the mythologised individual becomes an alter ego of a society conscious of its inherent flaws. Great effort is thus invested in hiding the actual from the gaze of society, so that only the mythologised can be viewed.
One often comes across videos on social media of common everyday people doing virtuous deeds, such as helping an old person cross a busy road, or helping an animal. The helping hands in this regard are exhibited as ‘heroes’, even though they might not even be aware that they are being filmed.
What if they weren’t? What if they remain unaware about the applause that their ‘viral video’ has attracted? Will they stop being helpful without having an audience? They certainly won’t be hailed as heroes. They are often exhibited as heroes by those who want to use them to signal their own appreciative attitude towards ‘goodness’.
This is a harmless ploy. But since self-interest is rampant in almost every society, this can push some people to mould themselves as heroes. There have been cases in which men and women have actually staged certain ‘heroic’ acts, filmed them, and then put them out for all to view. The purpose is to generate praise and accolades for themselves and, when possible, even monetary gains.
But it is also possible that they truly want to be seen as heroes in an unheroic age, despite displaying forged heroism. Then there are those who are so smitten by the romanticised notions of a ‘heroic age’ that they actually plunge into real-life scenarios to quench their intense yearning to be seen as heroes.
For example, a person who voluntarily sticks his neck out for a cause that may lead to his arrest. He knows this. But he also knows that there will be many on social and electronic media who will begin to portray him as a hero. But the applauders often do this to signal their own disposition towards a ‘heroic’ cause.
We apparently live in an unheroic age — an age that philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche or, for that matter, Muhammad Iqbal, detested. Each had their own understanding of a bygone heroic age.
To Nietzsche, the heroic age existed in some pre-modern period in history, when the Germanic people were fearless. To Iqbal, the heroic age was when early Muslims were powered by an unadulterated faith and passion to conquer the world. There are multiple periods in time that are referred to as ‘heroic ages’, depending on one’s favourite ideology or professed faith.
The yearning for heroes and the penchant for creating them to be revered — so that societies can feel better about themselves — is as old as when the first major civilisations began to appear, thousands of years ago. So when they spoke of heroic ages, what period of history were they reminiscing about — the Stone Age?
Humans are naturally pragmatic. From hunter-gatherers, we became scavenger-survivalists. The image may be off-putting but the latter actually requires one to be more rational, clever and pragmatic. This is how we have survived and progressed.
That ancient yearning for a heroic age has remained, though. An age that never was — an age that was always an imagined one. That’s why we even mythologise known histories, because the actual in this regard can be awkward to deal with. But it is possible to unfold.
America’s ‘founding fathers’ were revered for over two centuries as untainted heroes, until some historians decided to demystify them by exploring their lives outside their mythologised imaginings. Many of these heroes turned out to be slave-owners and not very pleasant people.
Mahatma Gandhi, revered as a symbol of tolerance, turned out to also be a man who disliked black South Africans. The founder of Pakistan MA Jinnah is mythologised as a man who supposedly strived to create an ‘Islamic state’, yet the fact is that he was a declared liberal and loved his wine. Martin Luther King Jr, the revered black rights activist, was also a prolific philanderer.
When freed from mythology, the heroes become human — still important men and women, but with various flaws. This is when they become real and more relatable. They become ‘anti-heroes.’
But there is always an urgency in societies to keep the flaws hidden. The flaws can damage the emotions that are invested in revering ‘heroes’, both dead and living. The act of revering provides an opportunity to feel bigger than a scavenger-survivor, even if this requires forged memories and heavily mythologised men and women.
Therefore, hero-worship can also make one blurt out even the most absurd things to keep a popular but distorted memory of a perceived hero intact. For example, this is exactly what one populist former Pakistani prime minister did when he declared that the terrorist Osama bin Laden was a martyr.
By doing this, the former PM was signalling his own ‘heroism’ as well — that of a proud fool who saw greatness in a mass murderer to signal his own ‘greatness’ in an unheroic age.
The French philosopher Voltaire viewed this tendency as a chain that one has fallen in love with. Voltaire wrote, “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”
Saturday 6 April 2024
Is the BJP winning the 2024 Lok Sabha elections?
Shekhar Gupta in The Print
As the combatants ready their manifestos for the 2024 campaign, the first set of opinion polls is with us. I understand the scepticism about news TV channels and the ‘so what else would you expect from these guys’ view among those who support the BJP’s rivals, but some data is better than data-free analysis.
Left to us journalists and pundits who predict poll outcomes after talking at a few dhabas and with three taxi drivers, we could conveniently give victory to our own favourites and then go to sleep happily. If the results are different, there are always the EVMs to blame.
The fact is, you do not even need any pollsters to tell you the BJP is way ahead in this contest. Even as the Opposition’s ambitious INDIA bloc has struggled to maintain cohesion, the BJP has set about repairing and rebuilding the NDA. The passion of the partisan aside, much of the talk within the opposition parties is about where they could limit Narendra Modi, rather than having him voted out of power.
That’s the state of play at this point in time, although the Opposition believes the revelations about the electoral bonds have put some wind in its sails. And the idea of the BJP’s ‘washing machine’ is a campaign pitch with some oomph. Is it powerful enough to turn the Opposition’s fortunes? Most opposition leaders would still look at the picture more soberly. It is about how to ‘limit’ Modi to a ‘reasonable’ number.
An insight into the Opposition’s thinking came in a conversation with the leader of one opposition party across the aisle on an IndiGo flight early in January. The third-generation dynast has inherited a party with a solid caste-based vote bank, albeit in a limited geography. I asked how he looked at the prospects, and whether he believed his caste vote bank would survive Modi’s pull.
The caste vote bank may be generally safe, he said, but when people go out to vote in the Lok Sabha elections, they will see only one choice. “How do you convince them there’s an alternative?” he asked. His party (and the Opposition), he said, was struggling to find an issue that brings a critical mass of people out into the streets. For example, if you raise the Agnipath scheme, only those affected will come to protest. The rest of the voters will be indifferent.
“What’s the solution, then? Has your three-generation politics come to an end?” I asked.
“Well,” he said, “let’s see it like we are in a nuclear winter. All we can do is survive until it thaws. In politics, that would mean preserving your caste vote bank, winning at least a few seats and conserving your resources. Live long enough until times change.”
Prescient, I thought, and very wise, too. Except, just days after this conversation, he left the INDIA bloc and joined the NDA. He probably chose this as a way of dealing with his nuclear winter. At least when and if things change, he will still be in the ring, and up on his feet to weigh new options.
With self-preservation or surviving to fight another day being the topmost thought on the minds of the opposition parties, each one faces different challenges. For some, like Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress, their state governments would be destabilised by any addition to the BJP’s 2019 tally of seats.
The currently embattled Aam Aadmi Party would look to make a bigger statement in Delhi than the wipeout of 2019. For the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT) and Sharad Pawar’s NCP faction, a relative success is essential for survival. For Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party and Lalu/Tejashwi Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), a 2019-like performance will make their dream of returning to power in their states that much more improbable.
These parties also have limited avenues for funds. Where they aren’t in power, the taps have remained dry for years and the savings are running out. Those that still rule a state and can ‘persuade’ moneyed people to pay have the ‘agencies’ on their tail. This would scare their prospective donors even more.
All this is about one-state parties. Or maybe one-and-a-half states in the case of AAP. For the Congress, the challenge is of a different order. Of late, it has struggled to maintain cohesion. Between 2014 and 2019, its only achievement was maintaining that rock-solid vote percentage of just about 20 percent. But this does not make enough seats for it to even cross the threshold in the Lok Sabha to get the formal leader of the Opposition status. What is the number it should target to convince its supporters and adversaries that it is a genuine challenger for the future?
The hundred-seat mark would be an interesting thought and can alter Indian politics. But is it realistic? I understand if the Congress officially contests any suggestion other than the idea that it is leading INDIA to a majority, but its leaders are experienced, having tasted victory and defeat. They’d believe that any substantive improvement, any number past 80 seats, would put it on a great footing. This is especially so with the Haryana, Maharashtra and Jharkhand elections to follow soon after.
The results on 4 June will set the momentum for elections in these important states. The BJP faces challenges in each of the three. A Congress tally of 80-plus now would give its allies in Jharkhand and Maharashtra strength. If it fails to reach even that mark, however, it risks losing its pre-eminence as the natural leader in an opposition alliance. A third disaster in a row would mean an upheaval within the party and definitely persuade the other rivals of the BJP to look for alternatives. Some may also decide to take the cue from my fellow traveller to escape the nuclear winter.
Why, then, is the BJP looking so frantic? Why is Modi campaigning as if trying to win power for the first time in 2014? Why this flurry of raids and arrests of opposition leaders, even a serving chief minister? Why does the party look so worried if it is indeed in such a good place in this campaign?
Good questions, and we will explore some answers. The first is that it is simply the nature of the Modi-Shah BJP. For them, every election is to be fought like their life depends on it.
The second, as we wrote in a National Interest four Saturdays ago, is that Modi is now campaigning not just for 2024, but for 2029. What works better for him in that quest than to destroy the Opposition as comprehensively as possible, leaving the survivors to contemplate their future? The Opposition, especially the Congress, is right to fear a one-man/one-party/one-ideology domination of the kind not seen in India yet. And if they don’t like it, they have to convince enough of the voters that this isn’t good for Indian democracy. There isn’t much time left.
As the combatants ready their manifestos for the 2024 campaign, the first set of opinion polls is with us. I understand the scepticism about news TV channels and the ‘so what else would you expect from these guys’ view among those who support the BJP’s rivals, but some data is better than data-free analysis.
Left to us journalists and pundits who predict poll outcomes after talking at a few dhabas and with three taxi drivers, we could conveniently give victory to our own favourites and then go to sleep happily. If the results are different, there are always the EVMs to blame.
The fact is, you do not even need any pollsters to tell you the BJP is way ahead in this contest. Even as the Opposition’s ambitious INDIA bloc has struggled to maintain cohesion, the BJP has set about repairing and rebuilding the NDA. The passion of the partisan aside, much of the talk within the opposition parties is about where they could limit Narendra Modi, rather than having him voted out of power.
That’s the state of play at this point in time, although the Opposition believes the revelations about the electoral bonds have put some wind in its sails. And the idea of the BJP’s ‘washing machine’ is a campaign pitch with some oomph. Is it powerful enough to turn the Opposition’s fortunes? Most opposition leaders would still look at the picture more soberly. It is about how to ‘limit’ Modi to a ‘reasonable’ number.
An insight into the Opposition’s thinking came in a conversation with the leader of one opposition party across the aisle on an IndiGo flight early in January. The third-generation dynast has inherited a party with a solid caste-based vote bank, albeit in a limited geography. I asked how he looked at the prospects, and whether he believed his caste vote bank would survive Modi’s pull.
The caste vote bank may be generally safe, he said, but when people go out to vote in the Lok Sabha elections, they will see only one choice. “How do you convince them there’s an alternative?” he asked. His party (and the Opposition), he said, was struggling to find an issue that brings a critical mass of people out into the streets. For example, if you raise the Agnipath scheme, only those affected will come to protest. The rest of the voters will be indifferent.
“What’s the solution, then? Has your three-generation politics come to an end?” I asked.
“Well,” he said, “let’s see it like we are in a nuclear winter. All we can do is survive until it thaws. In politics, that would mean preserving your caste vote bank, winning at least a few seats and conserving your resources. Live long enough until times change.”
Prescient, I thought, and very wise, too. Except, just days after this conversation, he left the INDIA bloc and joined the NDA. He probably chose this as a way of dealing with his nuclear winter. At least when and if things change, he will still be in the ring, and up on his feet to weigh new options.
With self-preservation or surviving to fight another day being the topmost thought on the minds of the opposition parties, each one faces different challenges. For some, like Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress, their state governments would be destabilised by any addition to the BJP’s 2019 tally of seats.
The currently embattled Aam Aadmi Party would look to make a bigger statement in Delhi than the wipeout of 2019. For the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT) and Sharad Pawar’s NCP faction, a relative success is essential for survival. For Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party and Lalu/Tejashwi Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), a 2019-like performance will make their dream of returning to power in their states that much more improbable.
These parties also have limited avenues for funds. Where they aren’t in power, the taps have remained dry for years and the savings are running out. Those that still rule a state and can ‘persuade’ moneyed people to pay have the ‘agencies’ on their tail. This would scare their prospective donors even more.
All this is about one-state parties. Or maybe one-and-a-half states in the case of AAP. For the Congress, the challenge is of a different order. Of late, it has struggled to maintain cohesion. Between 2014 and 2019, its only achievement was maintaining that rock-solid vote percentage of just about 20 percent. But this does not make enough seats for it to even cross the threshold in the Lok Sabha to get the formal leader of the Opposition status. What is the number it should target to convince its supporters and adversaries that it is a genuine challenger for the future?
The hundred-seat mark would be an interesting thought and can alter Indian politics. But is it realistic? I understand if the Congress officially contests any suggestion other than the idea that it is leading INDIA to a majority, but its leaders are experienced, having tasted victory and defeat. They’d believe that any substantive improvement, any number past 80 seats, would put it on a great footing. This is especially so with the Haryana, Maharashtra and Jharkhand elections to follow soon after.
The results on 4 June will set the momentum for elections in these important states. The BJP faces challenges in each of the three. A Congress tally of 80-plus now would give its allies in Jharkhand and Maharashtra strength. If it fails to reach even that mark, however, it risks losing its pre-eminence as the natural leader in an opposition alliance. A third disaster in a row would mean an upheaval within the party and definitely persuade the other rivals of the BJP to look for alternatives. Some may also decide to take the cue from my fellow traveller to escape the nuclear winter.
Why, then, is the BJP looking so frantic? Why is Modi campaigning as if trying to win power for the first time in 2014? Why this flurry of raids and arrests of opposition leaders, even a serving chief minister? Why does the party look so worried if it is indeed in such a good place in this campaign?
Good questions, and we will explore some answers. The first is that it is simply the nature of the Modi-Shah BJP. For them, every election is to be fought like their life depends on it.
The second, as we wrote in a National Interest four Saturdays ago, is that Modi is now campaigning not just for 2024, but for 2029. What works better for him in that quest than to destroy the Opposition as comprehensively as possible, leaving the survivors to contemplate their future? The Opposition, especially the Congress, is right to fear a one-man/one-party/one-ideology domination of the kind not seen in India yet. And if they don’t like it, they have to convince enough of the voters that this isn’t good for Indian democracy. There isn’t much time left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)