This important book discusses possible paths for the various societies of this world – towards more authority and intolerance, or towards more all-inclusive, tolerant democracies. How do we turn a mono-ethnic and conventional democracy into a multi-ethnic one? And how might such a vision of the future be something that members of both majority and minority groups in society may embrace? There are indeed plenty of examples that imperialism may be on the increase. Examples abound: Russia (Putin), China (Xi), Brazil (Bolzanaro), US (Trump), Hungary (Orban), Philippines (Marcos), just to mention a few.
The author recognizes, in full, that the outcome of the evolution we are in does not seem to be clear aboutwhether more tolerant multiracial democracies shall become the future norm or not.
The core topic of the book is of course of critical importance, also for us in business. As Anne Applebaum, political historian says: “anyone interested in the future of liberal democracy should read this book”. The author, Dr. Yascha Mounk, is a German-born social scientist who have lived in the US for the last decade and a half. He is now a professor at John Hopkins University. The author is an optimist, which I find to be encouraging when attempting to grapple with this complex book. Having rather radical political views, which the author shares without hesitation, the book is nevertheless truly balanced, seemingly objective. It does indeed provide a winning pattern for the future. Most of us, including those active in business, might appreciate this, and we should all read, read, read!
Content – Introduction
The book falls into three parts, plus an introduction and a conclusion. In the introduction, the author sees two main overriding reasons why it may be particularly hard to achieve effective diverse democracies: economic stagnation and mistrust/disinformation stemming from the rise of social media. Ironically, the author also points out that a certain degree of diversity can be a stumbling block, where the role of a majority might deepen the exclusion of some minority groups. A major strength of the book is then introduced already in the introduction, namely, to analyze the challenge of achieving diverse workable democracies from both an optimistic evolutionary viewpoint, as well as from a pessimistic one. The positive reality seems to be underscored by the fact that we are making strides when it comes to incorporating diversity. The negative reality, on the other hand, is founded on the fact that white, rich men often still seem to have a hold.
Let us now move to each of the three main parts of the book.
Part One: Where Diverse Societies Go Wrong
A discussion of why everyone cannot just get along provides the start of this section. Key words: different races, religions, and levels of income. This analysis is taken further by examining ways that societies might fail. Anarchy is the first, with chaos arising, stemming from the absence of state power. The original work of Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century English philosopher, provides the basis for the argument here. Then, domination is introduced as another factor associated with failure of diversity. Interestingly, such failure due to domination might also come from dominating minorities! (Syria, South African’s apartheid, …). Fragmentation represents a third source for achieving effective diverse societies. Often arbitrarily set borders might be a key source regarding this, particularly in Africa, but also elsewhere (Europe: Belgium, Ireland/Northern Ireland, …). Power sharing may often be difficult!
The first section concludes with a discussion of how to keep the peace. Several prepositions are stated. Provide equal status to all groups, emphasize common goals, build on initiatives that feature intergroup cooperation, and be absolutely clear and consistent when it comes to support from authorities.
Part Two: What Diverse Democracies Should Be
This part of the book discusses four foundational questions, each often being quite contested.
- What role should the state play in diverse democracies? There are of course different ways in which citizens of diverse democracies should be able to lead their lives – the degree of state intervention being the key here.
- Should diverse democracies embrace patriotism? Ethnic patriotism and focus on ethnic “purity” are indeed seen as dysfunctional. But civil patriotism is seen as normally good – i.e., citizens should be proud of their countries!
- To what extent should immigrants and members of other minority groups be expected to “integrate” into mainstream society? Must many become one? The author discusses the so-called ‘melting pot’ vision, and rejects this, as not sufficiently respecting original national traits, including languages, and religion. The opposite, labelled ‘salad bowl’ by the author, is of course not good either – simply too much fragmentation, no integration at all! The author then introduces his own ideal: ‘the public park’, open to everyone, with freedom to pursue various options, and a functional ‘meeting place’. These are all ideals that one might agree to, but are they too utopic?
- Finally, what kind of informal rules should structure how people lead their daily lives? Can such shared lives be meaningfully built? The author provides several propensities regarding this, including to emphasize what people basically share, showing empathy rather than being overly rash and to pursue solidarity as much as possible.
Part Three: How Diverse Democracies can Succeed
To what extent might it be realistic to push for such democratic diversity, what are some particular potential obstacles and what are the ‘costs’ of failure when it comes to this? The author’s view is that cost of failure might typically be too high. So, why should we be optimistic? A major factor regarding this is that most diverse democracies have indeed made meaningful progress over the last decades. Most believers of the Islamic faith, for instance, are indeed moderate, and so they do their best to become integrated in the social and economic lives of countries to they have immigrated. But there are of course also examples of the opposite, i.e., typically involving individuals with a more fundamental faith. Conservatives, in particular, often tend to be quick to blame these groups. The left is often in passionate disagreement when it comes to this. The author cites these key factors in this respect:
- Will immigrants and minority groups forever remain second-rate citizens, not being fully accepted into society? While we always may be likely to find political and linguistic enclaves, there seems to be no doubt that integration indeed is taking place. The ‘old’ notion of ‘Gastarbeiter’ in countries such as Switzerland and Germany, for instance, seems to be on the way out.
- Are immigrants and minorities underperforming in schools, universities as well as in the job market? Here it should be noted that many immigrants are indeed highly skilled. Progress when it comes to education, i.e., achieving exams and degrees, is clear. But is it correct that crime and terror tends to be associated with immigrants in particular? Most immigrants clearly embrace the core values of the societies in which they live, however. And those who still might have a propensity to practice violence should be firmly opposed by all the rest of us, not accepting that such groups ‘return to their own tribes’ where violence might be ok.
- Are such fears of terrorism and propensities to undertake criminal acts forever remaining fundamental threats to the rest of us? Demographics lead to a higher proportion of representation of ‘new’ citizen groups. But interestingly, these new groups are not necessarily pursuing unique, distinctive agenda items. They often pick up on already well-established political ideas, but frequently while maintaining their own ’shades of grey’. The new mainstream might be growing more inclusive. Demography is not destiny!
The author makes a good point when he asserts that books about big ideas may typically suffer from ‘letdowns’ when it comes to what to do about such challenges that have been raised. Often ameliorating suggestions might be more or less utopian, lacking realism to a considerable degree. The author labels this a ‘chapter 10 problem’. He offers four major suggestions for how to pursue societal change, building further on the fact that rapid economic progress typically might help, giving us reason for optimism.
- It is easier to cheer on the success of different groups when one feels that one’s own future is likely to go the right way. This is worthwhile considering that financial crashes seem to benefit the ‘right’ in particular, while ‘steady’ economic growth seems to benefit the ‘left’. The challenge is to find ways to pursue ‘inclusive growth’.
- Low socio-politic standings continue to be a problem for some groups. Universal solidarity seems to be critical here; how do we build on this? Public policy can do a lot. The so-called ‘welfare state’, perhaps pioneered above all in the Scandinavian countries, might be crucial here.
- How might all (or at least most) groups be included when it comes to making key decisions? How can effective inclusiveness be achieved? To welcome immigration, to ‘invite’ such groups to participate in democratic processes seems important. Paradoxically, perhaps, a tight border control seems to be more closely related to such welcoming of immigrants (p. 275).
- How can people whom one might be disagreeing with, be seen in a more ‘agreeable’ light? To try to push for more mutual respect seems necessary – avoid polarization, avoid ‘them’ versus ‘us’. The author suggests that while sticking to personal principles, one should not only be willing to criticize one’s own but also to try to engage and persuade opponents rather than ridicule them.
Conclusion
In concluding, the author maintains that there are indeed several reasons for optimism, as seen by various developments around the world - more inclusiveness, more acceptance of all, more widely shared economic benefits, and so on. There will always be pessimists, in contrast, but advocates of diverse democracies must have the courage to fight these groups. Various dysfunctional views peddled by pessimists must not be allowed to dominate. A faith in a shared humanity, based on a diverse democratic movement, is what we must be committed to.
After having finished this book, I was, as a reviewer, asking myself whether I shall be able to do full justice to the often deep arguments that the author makes. I have done my best, however. In the end, nothing beatsreading the book in its entirety. While it may be written in a complex way, both when it comes to trains of thought as well as to language, there seems to be no doubt, as far as this reviewer can see, that the topic which the author successfully covers is very central. I am impressed! I would recommend this book wholeheartedly.
Comments