The early 21st century has witnessed the rise of powerful reactionary movements that have claimed to act on behalf of the people, the down-trodden majority. This political reaction has taken various forms, from religious fundamentalism to the rise in nationalist and ethno-exclusivist politics. It is becoming increasingly apparent that more and more people are becoming discontented at the state of politics; a solution must be found elsewhere.

As the neo-liberal agenda, combined with a New Right strategy, began to unravel in the 1980s, with it spread a sense of unease, and many felt threatened and exploited by a process that seemed to deliver its benefits to only a fraction of the population. To “post-colonial” societies, the free world seemed increasingly limited to the West and the free movement of goods; in particular the outward movement of resources with little or no compensation for local people.

In Western societies, the hegemonic rise of neo-liberalism left many unable to share the benefits of globalisation. In America, this group turned massively to the paranoid politics embodied by evangelical movements and populist groups such as the Tea Party. Similarly, in Europe, growing discontent led to the rise of the extreme right as an alternative to mainstream politics. In Australia, nationalism and ethno-exclusivism have made their way back to the forefront of mainstream politics, often presented as “common sense” in the media.

It seems, therefore, to follow that at least some people are fed up with the system and want some change. Interestingly, however, it seems that an answer to this frustration is found in reactionary solutions, despite these reinforcing their global insecurity. In his book What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Franck Thomas showed how former Democrat strongholds such as Kansas turned to the most extreme Republican politics as the process of de-industrialisation worsened. As Kansans lost their jobs, they re-elected – in landslides – the very governments that had reinforced inequalities, leading to more job scarcity and economic insecurity. To their daily socio-economic worries, many Americans added moral issues such as abortion, gay rights and Muslim invasion fantasies.

If one trusts the media as a representative of the people’s interests, Australians too seem to be worried about issues such as refugees and the insidious introduction of sharia law into our society. Take for example a recent article by Miranda Devine in one of the most widely read newspapers in the country. Devine told “us” that sharia law has already taken root in our country and alluded to racist riots as a possible result.

And, in a separate article in another widely read publication, Chris Kenny wondered whether we should limit freedom of speech, as Muslim activists such as comedian Nazeem Hussain uttered “disturbing and dangerous” comments about the killing of Osama bin Laden on public television.

This type of scare campaign and scapegoating of the “other”, particularly the Muslim “other” in recent times, has also become central in mainstream politics. Since former prime minister John Howard’s rise in the mid-1990s, populist scapegoating has proved extremely rewarding and it is not surprising that the refugee issue still makes front page news 10 years after the Tampa affair. What is appealing in the exclusionary message given by these public figures is the easy way out they offer their scared and/or scarred audience, the semblance of an alternative they provide to the unsatisfactory state of things. They offer a “common sense” approach to which it is easy to relate and submit. In short, they reignite the age-old battle between reason and instinct that has been waged since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

To that growing part of the population feeling excluded, slighted or exploited by the system, “natural” solution is offered, whose appeal is its simplicity. Rather than engaging a thorough examination of the system they live in, these populists rely on exclusionary elements and the scapegoating of minorities to justify fear, economic insecurity and exploitation. They offer those who are upset at their situation a self-righteous way-out, which if taken, entrenches selfishness and laziness: why think hard about the situation when the answer is common sense? We have lost our way and we need a return to more fundamentalist morals. We have been too generous and we need to be more aware of who is knocking on our door. Central to the rise of fundamentalism (both religious and nationalist) is that it feeds on its alien counterpart: Islamic fundamentalism will reinforce Western nationalism, Christian fundamentalism its Islamic counterpart and around again.

This vicious circle not only enrols more and more people into rabidly exclusivist movements, but gains increasing prominence in our media and in our way of life. To combat this destruction, a return to more rationality is needed. It is time to face the limitations of our liberal societies and the dangerous contradictions ingrained in them. There is certainly hope, and movements based on open, egalitarian and positive beliefs are emerging. The democratic uprisings in the Middle East are an obvious example, as were the recent protests in Spain. We saw strikes in Wisconsin in the United States supported by Egyptian demonstrators; we see strong opposition to the English Defence League in England time and time again. What these movements have in common is their inclusion and their reticence to align with old dogmas. What they have in common is the universality of their message. What they have in common is what is desperately needed to reclaim our politics.

 

First published in the National Times in May 2011

 

---

---