People in Britain will vote tomorrow in a referendum on whether to exit the European Union. Whatever the outcome, it would be a historical decision: If Britain votes to leave, it would not only challenge the European Union, but will be one major political step in transforming the post-War global system; if it decides to stay, it would create a different dynamic in the EU and its future expansion, and in effect, transform the post-war system in a different way. However, though it is an event poised with meaning and significance, little substantiative debate on this has happened so far.
Indeed, I am writing this the morning after BBC-hosted big debate, where the cases for Remain and Leave campaigns were laid out by some of the leading figures, and an event that was eagerly watched around the country. However, the debate remained, as it was so far, too centred around personalities and their ambitions and prospects, a celebrity thing! The Leave side focused on 'Taking Back Control', repeating the expression in every sentence as if to brainwash the audience; the Remain side focused on how uncertain the promises that the Leave side are making, and made its own case, following a strategy that worked in the last Scottish referendum on Independence, on Expert opinions on one hand and the prospect of economic uncertainties on the other. But, among the rhetoric and the spin, no one wanted to discuss why this referendum is perhaps inevitable and that it embodies.
Such oversight is perhaps intended. There is no brownie point in making sense in the heat of a campaign. Both sides are playing by carefully planned campaign playbooks, playing on emotions and fears, tickling our desire for stimulation and safety, trying to win our votes tomorrow. With lots of money on stake, the issue for both sides is indeed 'control', another word for power, and the byline, who gets to be the Prime Minister, is not just the byline, it may indeed be the main story.
However, it is important to try to make sense of this debate: For me, as a voter, this has wide significance well beyond tomorrow. The sky will not fall apart on Friday morning if the Leave side wins; neither life will get any better if they do. But, the assumptions we lived by so far will change, and the future will be quite different from what we thought it would be. It is important to understand, therefore, what this debate is about, raising our head above the details of pennies and pounds as well as the fears of nameless Syrian kids taking over Britain.
At the heart of this debate is the Globalization Paradox: That democracy, nation state and global markets can not coexist. Formulated by Harvard economist, Dani Rodrik, this trillemma represents one of the most fundamental problems in our societies - the three things that are projected as the most desirable can not live together. Britain, since 1980s, prospered by transforming, successfully as it appears, into an open global economy, aided by the European integration no less, and hence, its strong democratic traditions and nation state feelings have come to a head. This is somewhat inevitable, and every major nation is facing these challenges: The United States has its Trump, for example! However, in the debate about the referendum, this issue appeared in a muddled form. The Leave campaign made 'Democracy' the centre-piece of their campaign, though the issue they are campaigning for is a Nation State 1930s style and not democracy (that Britain is voting on the issue means democracy is not dead). However, the Remain side do not want to talk about this - at least not directly - as they feared that they can not win the argument against Nationalism.
The point is, of course, that is what this debate has become. And, this made Remain side falter somewhat: This has become Nationalism versus Internationalism, an unwinnable debate somewhat, particularly with a country squeezed in the middle of shift of economic powers and a disappearing welfare state. But the implications of losing this debate is significant: However odious the UKIP posters may look (a direct invocation of Nazi iconography), that is what nationalism looks like. The Post-War system, which was created on the twin basis of economic nationalism (the Bretton Woods system) and Political Cooperation (UN and other organisations), was being dismantled for a while, with WTO and other trade deals like TPP, unmaking its economic aspect and making global capital possible and potent. The 'Brexit' debate is one of the first assault on its political edifice, on a significant post-war organisation from a major country. This, and as other things will follow (like a Trump win, perhaps), may set the process back to what it was - Global Capital with Nation States - something that gave us, among other things, two World Wars of the Twentieth Century.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.