Constructivism in the Age of Populism: The Soul of International Law and Relations — Beyond the Dread of Existentialism
We generally approach towards populism in different narratives. Scholars have affirmed that the doctrinal weight of populism is not related to the aspect of ideology. Why does it seem important? As the RAND Corporation explores about Vladimir Putin, Russia Today and the communication aspect connected between them — they found out in their 2016 report that Putin embraces the communication tactic known as Firehosing. Firehosing as similar to Jay Van Bavel’s research on Perception building — is the tool to spread propaganda along and keep up repeating the cycle of misinformation and fake news. Trump follows that but in an indirect way. The European Politicians aren’t behind the Americans in this. PM Modi is quite different but it is complicated in India because Modi reflects to be a liberal marketeer of authoritarian bureaucracy. He does not seem to be conservative or direct populist, but maybe a pseudo-populist. Pseudo-populism is seen these days in the US and India, and in some strands in Pakistan. But, we must also determine how populism becomes technical day by day, and then we can relate to this demarcation.
Populism is Oldish in the Age of Information: Same Politics, Same Tactics
There is no significant change in terms of the way populism drives. What speciality it has common in terms of the plural sub-channels and ontologies involved is that it is still about driving public opinion and creating resonating materialism for them. Means — have a look? The Aristocratic International Community before and after the First World War was much concerned with White Supremacy, Economic Anxiety and Ethnicity issues. Although advanced yet rubbish problems like Islamophobia weren’t so distinct, but the ontological development in the politics of populism isn’t so different. This reminds and excites me to seek the idea behind ‘The Prince’ by Niccolo Machiavelli. Anyways — after the 2nd World War, and the formation of United Nations, League of Arab States, European Economic Community and other international, regional and local bodies around the world, the promissory development of political nationalism in the US propagated the 1–4–1 diplomacy during the Cold War and other NATO-led disputes. At this juncture, this cannot be denied that the inspired development of American International Law was backed and added up with the transplantation of the Americanization of the world. Especially in Eastern Europe. It had serious consequences and influenced the political morality of economic capitalism in the States widely. The interesting part in the US-East relationship was when Vladimir Putin joined politics and in the coming years, became the Prime Minister and then the President of the Russian Federation. He used every single mistaken step taken up by the US and other progressive democracies in an interesting way. He himself takes in the aspect that (i) the Soviets had already de-Islamized their Soviet bloc states and then encouraged more oppression of the minorities, and (ii) the West is trying to capitalize the world by injecting and forcing their ethnocentric attitudes around the world. Then came the failures by NATO and other Western states in Eastern Europe and MENA countries. Bashar Al Assad, the President of the Syrian Arab Republic — is under the benefits of what it means to be a transactional sovereign state, where Russia, Iran and Turkey sponsor the Assad forces and make it more of conflict-stricken state of no purpose. In the case of Iran, it is an impeccable paradox because of the fact that various attempts are being made to encourage redemptions across the world. This happens due to the existence of populism as a technical communication to change the thermodynamic lubrication of public conscience. This worsens the power of legitimate activism and innovation in the method of crisis management because populism is technically a form of communication strategy, which seems to be dynamic due to its ridden overflow all along — but has no future. Also — the potential of populism is dependent on the fact as to how we react to the populists. Fake News and Misinformation can only be encouraged when our minds are lazy and we aren’t able to determine how we can shape our perception. The idea of isms connected with any sort of political, economic, individual and social redemption is what populism constitutes in working. This is a communicable reality, which is further driven by capitalism in general.
Populism is the Paradoxical Restraint on People due to Political Left
People think there is a left, then a moderate/liberal and then a right. This can be attributed in many countries around the world in terms of thinking and approaches to life, which is doable, but the research does not complete the paradox. Tony Blair once said:
If you put right-wing populism against left populism, right-wing populism will win.
This happens. For example, the conflict in the Brexit politics currently is on the premise that Jeremy Corbyn himself is either confused or is a Brexiteer who wants a deal Brexit anyways. But his inclination to drive the Labor party begins from the owed fact that he strives towards an electoral success and harasses the parliamentary system by mocking the redemption that the people of UK have faced already. On the other hand — Boris Johnson is causing a retributory success among the Tories, which is a fallacious attempt. The Conservatives seem to be united in a constrained way, without a democratic clarity and certainty and this is why Liberals & Democrats won the By-Elections well in some parts of the UK. The paradox for both the right-wing populists and the left is — political parties like these in the coming years have failed to innovate and harmonize public opinion. It is thus the responsibility of the political parties to act justified and encourage people to embattle and synchronise political redemptions into a replenished and not a normalized way. It is easy to increase aggression and defeatism among people — but as political leaders, the economic utility and political mandate to capitalist societies must be affixed with a sense of harmony.
Now — why is it that Populism is a paradox? The advent of the Left explains it. Since the formation of the Soviet Union, there has been discriminatory action against the Muslims in the occupied parts of Central Asia, where they have been neutralized. Some have been misused and sent as fighters for the Syrian and Yemen conflict as per reports (whether accountable or not), which itself denounces and oppresses the Muslims around the world. Yes — we cannot ignore how ethnocentrism affected the world, and how White Supremacy is being treated by the West poorly, especially by Europe. However, this angle of politics like Islamophobia emerged due to ethnocentrism and the political translucency of the progressive democracies around the world, including India, Australia and the United States. Thus — the Left proved to be good for neither the minorities nor the Majority itself.
Beyond Muslims too — the frustrated penetration that the Left shares with the Right these days are emanating from the fact that capitalism had a decisive role somehow. A Capitalist society added by liberal politics is safer yet has the potential to encourage the argumentative essence of Fukuyama — that people have the clash of identities and intend to go beyond on the perspectives that are Westernized or Americanized. Thus, it is no surprise to me that India under PM Modi and China under Xi Jinping are showing a competency asset to the world in a shady and indirect manner. That is why it seems to be a countering perspective of inverted legitimacy around the international community. However, there must be an objective method to govern the rights of the people and derive better politics globally. What much can you expect from the political right, which has no ideology anyways?
Currently, we need to replenish identities and not normalizing them always. Constructivism can improve itself on its own. :)