opinion

Hegemonic political alternatives are basically non-starters. Very specifically, they are quite incongruent with the larger democratic and egalitarian aspirations of classes and groups that have been long denied a meaningful role in societies.

Even culturally, ethnically and religiously homogenous societies have not been fully able to implement and prosper under hegemonic political orders. There are indications that there are nations that are slowly trying to wiggle out of hegemonic orders to create more broad-based and pluralistic political alternatives that will cater for different interests.

Conceptually speaking, hegemonic orders are basically tyrannical and undemocratic. Rather than recognising the plurality of societal differentiation in ethnic, class, religious and linguistic terms, hegemonic orders seeks to impose a kind of order that seeks to reduce diversity.

In fact, diversity is the enemy of hegemonic orders. There is a very basic, unhealthy trait in the proposition of this order. Individuals, groups and political parties seeking to impose this order simply can't accept the factor of human diversity and diffferentiation.

Given the material and moral problems with the existing system, proponents of these orders, project an impression that have they all the answers for human ailments. By fixating on highly selective historical examples, they seek to provide a moral and intellectual legitimacy to their cause.

Ethnic violence

Proponents of hegemonic orders have a false sense of superiority and arrogance. There is a lack of basic respect for human beings belonging to different ethnic, religious or linguistic groups.

Differentiation is sought not in terms of defining others, but also within. In fact, the first level of differentiation is sought within a group. More often than not, this differentiation seeks to juxtapose between the true believers and non-believers, those who truly represent the nationalistic aspirations of an ethnic group and those who are considered traitors and others.

The second level, which operates simultaneously, seeks to provide for the differentiation on the basis of certain well-defined descriptive qualities such as race, religion, language, region and others. It is this differentiation that takes on a political dimension and in some situations, contributes to ethnic or religious violence.

In most cases, those articulating hegemonic political orders simply do not have a holistic understanding of the complex interactions between politics and economics. As such, invariably, proponents of hegemonic orders do not have a material solution in terms of bringing about a more equitable society.

It is simply taken for granted that the mere proposition and implementation of ideas would be enough to render the political formula an effective one. Naivety or simple political reductionism is the main cause why hegemonic alternatives do not last long and why they cause so much misery among the people.

Late capitalism

Hegemonic political orders are for all intents and purposes, authoritarian orders. When politics and the nature of governance are organised on the basis of ethnicity, religion or some other criteria, there will be tendency on the part of proponents to safeguard these principles at all costs, even if hegemonic political orders bring human calamity.

More specifically, hegemonic political orders have a natural inclination to discriminate and marginalise groups or classes that do not belong to a particular ethnic or religious group. In such situations, it would not be too inaccurate to say that hegemonic orders have the tendency to inspire separatist and insurgent movements. There are many examples that can be given to support this argument.

While it is understandable that some political orders seek to be congruent with the material needs of the production system, hegemonic orders are basically reactive. For instance, political orders organised on ethnicity or religion might last for a certain period of time, but its continued presence will not be consonant with the material realm.

Similarly, political orders organised on the basis of religion would be not in keeping with the demands of the material system, in other words, the requirement of late capitalism, to use Mandel's term.

Religion as the defining principle of politics will demand a system that is feudal or pre-capitalist. While feudal elements have not been totally eliminated in the present world, feudalism as the organising principle of economy is dead. So some groups are naively proposing a political system based on religion in the absence of material relations to sustain such a system.

Complex changes

It is not that the present world is free from hegemonic political orders; there a few around. And since these political orders are facing all kinds of problems, the days of their relevance are numbered.

But surprisingly, there are groups, individuals, associations and political parties who are intending to create further hegemonic orders without carefully understanding the economic and political changes that the world has witnessed.

While the changes are complex and difficult to comprehend, hegemonic political orders cannot by definition bring about sanity and justice to people who have been affected by the larger developmental process.

No civilised human being will endorse a hegemonic political order, whatever its organising principle. It will just be giving effect to the Hobbes argument that we have no choice but to surrender our rights to some authority for reasons of security.

P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.