So far, the impact of identity politics on society has been examined through micro-level and theoretical perspectives, so for the concluding argument, the proposition will be more abstract, examining the topic through a macro and empirical lens. In this argument, I will examine the politics of India, Sub-Saharan Africa and Singapore to identify an interesting trend that is as old as time itself to support the claim that identity politics is indeed ripping society apart.
Firstly, I would like to examine examples of how identity politics and the categorisation of society into identity-based sects have led to conflict in history, furthering divisions in society – both physically, through economics and politics, and psychologically.
The first example that I’d like to bring up to support my claim that identity politics has torn us apart is the case study of India. I would like to reference the inherently discriminatory caste system that has plagued India since the Manusmriti and the large Hindu-Muslim conflict that reached a flashpoint in the 1950s and now once again in the 21st century. Although the caste system was established before the birth of Christ, Shashi Tharoor notes that it was heavily enforced by the British during colonial rule. The caste system divides Hindus into five main sects: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and the Dalits. The construction of society is similar to Plato’s dystopian rendition of society in the Republic: certain groups of people were relegated to leading roles such as priests and warriors while some were classified as outcasts and made to be latrine cleaners. The system bestowed many privileges on the upper castes while sanctioning repression of the lower castes by privileged groups. It is incredibly regressive and has trapped people into a fixed social order due to their identity: recently, job quotas – called the OBCs – were created and the Indian constitution banned discrimination based on caste, but conflict is still prevalent as exemplified by the violent Jat protests in Haryana during 2016 and the Patel community’s ‘semi-extremist’ movement in 2015. The more the government supported the lower castes, the more infuriated the higher caste communities felt, thus inciting large conflict in the country, further dividing it due to the large focus on identity politics.
Furthermore, divisiveness due to identity politics can be heavily seen dotted throughout the long-lasting Hindu-Muslim conflict which culminated in the largest mass migration in history during the Indian partition, the formation of an entire new state, incredibly escalated tensions and violations of human rights in the region of Jammu and Kashmir and large ethnic conflicts in both India and Pakistan. Identity – particularly religious identity – acted as the largest driving factor in one of the most schismatic movements in history. Additionally, society was not only torn apart due to the partition and India-Pakistan tensions but also due to institutionalised and cultural issues that derive from identity. The recent CAA denies the value of community as it violates fraternal bonds between communities: a public good recognised by Ambedkar and the Supreme Court in decisions on secularism. Religious identity politics has further torn apart India.
Next, I would like to bring up Professor Bridgman of LSU’s argument on how ethnically divided countries are the poorest in the global order to demonstrate that, empirically, identity politics has even torn apart countries on the basis of economics. Bridgman states that ethnic divisions are associated with poor economic performance as the large focus on ethnicity as a form of identity has led to economic collapse in Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia post-WW2. Ethnically divided countries are poorer due to three effects: first, ethnically divided countries are more prone to fight wars. It is obvious that the damage war causes is detrimental to an economy. Second, since ethnically divided countries tend to fight more wars, they divert more resources into armies and away from productive uses. Third, the tendency to redistribute is stronger in ethnically divided countries, distorting investment decisions. In Sub-Saharan Africa, civil wars were incredibly intense and prevalent, drawing us to the question of what exactly are civil wars and why are they so omnipresent? A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies. These different aims derive from people’s inherently different beliefs and experiences, but where do these come from? Their identity: their ethnicity, the subjugation of their community, the privilege of their community, their nationality, gender and more. Our experiences due to our identity lead to our decisions in the future, creating the potential for civil war – in the extreme cases – and smaller rifts on a day-to-day basis. The more we identify with and focus on our identity – the things that make us different from one another – the less we are unified.
Next, I would like to analyse examples on the other side of the spectrum of my previous two case studies. Analysing Singapore demonstrates a very explicit and different trend showcasing that when we neglect our identity and inhibit the division of society in identity-based castes, society is stable and prosperous. Due to time constraints, I would like to reference specific statistics and facts to make my argument: Singapore has a Religious Diversity Index of 9.0 – the highest possible – but a Terrorism Index of 0.0 – the lowest possible. Singapore has a diverse society but identity is completely neglected here as the Singaporean government promulgates the notion of a unified society through the Racial Harmony Act and structures it in a meritocratic mannerism in order to promote harmony rather than disharmony. Although racism is still prevalent, the government inhibits various forms of identity politics in the nation, and this is somehow yielding a stable society – a society much more stable than “the liberal hegemonies of the West”. Singapore does this through the lack of first-generation human rights, by not signing the ICCPR and by exerting heavy normative power upon its citizens.
Talking about how prioritising authoritarianism over individual identity to prevent conflict seems quite grim and bleak, so I hope to offer a spark of hope in my conclusion. I believe that I have identified a very prevalent trend in history that, when we focus on our identity and systematically divide society into identity-based categories, conflict ensues. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.... History shows that time and time again, society needs to be torn apart to be rebuilt as demonstrated by the Satyagraha movement in South Africa and India leading to the end of the Apartheid and colonialism in said region.
Therefore, to summarise my arguments, historically it has been shown that identity and identity politics has led to mass chaos and an incredibly divisive political landscape, causing conflict. But is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. Thank you.
Comentários