Kapok: The pitfalls of populism

It does not happen very often but Mr Fong Chi Keong has a point when he warns the government of the dangers of “populism” in Macao, adding, in plenary session of the Legislative Assembly, that the issue of how the government deals with public opinion and democracy has to be resolved properly.

Topping his concerns is the situation in Europe and what he calls “the paradox of democracy”. From his own reckoning, this so-called paradox was coined by analysts, an admission that in itself is worth stressing as Mr Fong has repeatedly characterised experts and scholars as “useless”. For him the contradiction lies in the overpowering capacity of the people to influence policy-making whereas very few citizens actually master the complexity and the ins and outs of institutional politics and economic development, and simply speaking, lack the ability to form an informed opinion. The consequence being on the one hand that people’s participation is seen as both “excessive” and “blind” (his words), and on the other that citizens can easily be manipulated.

Mr Fong then highlights the two main aptitudes that a government must display if populism is to be warded off. The first is for a government to face its responsibilities. Failing to do so, in his mind, will put the people at a loss, fuel social hostility and ultimately help populism blossom.

Mr Fong’s main target appears to be the excessive recourse to “public consultations”, in which he sees a distortion of the political system, an indication of the weakness of the government’s capacity to change things and a clear lack of self-confidence. And then, if the government does eventually uphold its responsibilities, it needs to act as a mediator — a second necessary skill — in order to mitigate the adverse effects of ongoing developments. Here, the main example given by legislator Fong is the conciliation role the government needs to play in labour disputes, at a time when labour movements have grown in autonomy and thus more demanding.

This is all very well, and being French and having just participated in the first round of France’s presidential election that many have dubbed a “triumph of populism”, I can concur: when “populism” wins, public policies rooted in reason and social stability are put at risk. But then this is one of the characteristics of democracy: sovereignty resides in the people, and even though it might look messy, it also means that people can rebel without resorting to revolution by using the legal channels of election, even if it means breaking away from the European Union or putting in the White House a whimsical twitting-maniac as the most powerful leader of the planet. Is it challenging? Hell yeah! Are democratic institutions crumbling? Well, Brexit is being engineered by Theresa May along the idea of a “deep and special relationship” with the European Union and Mr Trump has experienced a few setbacks regarding the scrapping of the Obamacare, enforcing illegal travel bans or even letting go the North American Free Trade Agreement.

What does Mr Fong actually mean by populism in a place where the Chief Executive runs unopposed and only 41% of the legislators are returned via universal (competitive) suffrage? What does he mean by the government not “assuming responsibility”? By his own token, given that Mr Fong was one of the most vocal opponents of the domestic violence law (ultimately passed) and the staunchest supporter of the 2014 perks’ bill for senior officials (ultimately withdrawn following the most important street demonstrations since 1989), what would “taking his responsibility” mean? My guess is a bit of courage and for him to resign.

The root cause of populism is not democracy: it is the perpetuation of illegitimate and plutocratic community leaders who have proven time again their incapacity to make the right choices for the common good. In a democracy or even in a result-driven autocracy benefiting the majority, the paradox can somehow be resolved more or less peacefully…

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 28, 2017

Kapok: Everything's patriotic now!

Patriotism is double-edged: nurture the bond that it entails and it becomes a virtue; make it a blind imperative and venture into dangerous territories in which hierarchies are induced, force prevails and ultimately oppression arises. Broadly speaking, patriotism is assumed to be an act of “love”, whereas nationalism, its contemporary by-product, helps build the case for war. Among the most notorious quotes drawing a distinction between the two is that by American essayist Stanley Harris: “The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.”

The word “patriotism” comes from “patria”, the Latin for “fatherland”, and indicated an attachment and commitment to a “familiar place” in Roman antiquity. It evolved into more of a political concept meaning a loyalty to some values, even though it was strictly more social than political. The civic engagement it presumed was in no way a challenge to the powers that be! From there, the idea was that patriotism be linked to citizenship, and a republican form of government took shape. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica, patriotism is “associated with the love of law and common liberty, the search for the common good, and the duty to behave justly toward one’s country.”

In contrast, nationalism, which originates in the Latin “natio”, meaning birth, implies a linkage between the birthplace, language and culture, although at least two perspectives compete: a more “objective” one, backed by German philosophers, emphasises the commonality of characteristics shared by a group of people; and a more “subjective” one, upheld by French philosophers, insists on “the will to live together”, and thus a voluntary act of belonging.

No doubt it is a mix of both conceptualizations that led Sun Yat-sen to define “nationalism” as one of the Three Principles of the People — together with “democracy” and “welfare” — that would allow China to restore its pride and become once again a free, prosperous and powerful country. In 1949, Mao’s Communist Party “liberated” China from foreign invaders, and the People’s Republic of China’s army is still today called the People’s Liberation Army. The problem is that “nationalism” is a “bourgeois ideology” in the Marxist tradition, and the reference to “nationalism” was somewhat confiscated by the Kuomintang, literally the “party of the people of a nation”. In Chinese, one refers to a “feeling” (xin) when patriotism is summoned, whereas a “doctrine” (zhuyi) is invoked when it comes to “nationalism”.

In today’s Macao, patriotism serves every purpose. No significant association will not include — or have its statutes changed to reflect that new requirement — an article that insists on the purpose to “love the country, love Macao” (aiguo aiao), whether it is to promote Macao’s F&B, modern dance or communal gatherings – even more so in education.

Although the “One thousand people program” (qianren jihua) funded by the Macao Foundation was originally to “nurture and promote the development of talents in Macao”, its blunt imperative is actually to bond with the “motherland”.

Almost all participating organisations in 2016 and 2017 (altogether 22 schools and 21 associations) correspond to Macao’s traditional patronage associations, the very same that have been vested with this task for decades — from the General Association of Chinese Students of Macao to the Association of Returned Overseas Chinese Macao, together with the youth organisations of the Kaifong, the Women’s General Association, the Federation of Trade Unions. Are these really the best channels to stimulate a “feeling” of double inclusiveness – an attachment to the familiar and a respect for a broader unity? Allowing for a bit of genuine “engagement” from diversified sources may prove more convincing!

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 7, 2017