La pensée unique

La pensée unique: The Adherence to “the single thought” and Arguing for the Nationalist Future

By: Surajreet Singh

In a 1995 article for Le Monde, Ignacio Ramonet spoke of the growth of a doctrine, one that bordered upon dogma, in the world’s democracies. He named it la pensée unique (the single thought), “the translation of the interests of a body of economic forces into ideological terms pretending to universality.” It is the view that globalization, ever-expansive, universalizing, and aided by a new liberal international order, is always a force for good. With time and repetition, the view became entrenched. We now adhere to the single thought so viciously that we applaud leaders that go to million-dollar events in Davos while we neglect those at home. Our leaders know this and do it anyway.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, celebrated as a triumph of the West and its values over the scourge of Communism, ushered in an era of peace, stability and giddiness for much of the world. Scholars began reimagining the future of international relations and “the end of history” entered into the political mainstream. The new world order was liberal internationalism, regarded as critical to avoid the bloodbath of the twentieth century. Liberal internationalism favoured global institutions. The United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, among others, were prized for their role in connecting the world. They favoured the reduction of trade barriers, forcing developing countries to adopt economic liberalization and privatization. This was for the good of every country, they said.

Yet with each passing year, Fukuyama’s “end of history” drifts further away from the consciousness. Wars have continued to rage in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, genocides have occurred and are occurring to this day, and Africa remains stuck in a quicksand of poverty. The United Nations stood by as a genocide raged in Rwanda. The world stands by as the Chinese Communist Party does the same to the Uyghurs. The Middle East struggles under decades of bombardment. Time and time again, their answer to this is foreign aid and more engagement. But the reduction of trade barriers that allowed for millions of working-class jobs to be outsourced from the West is barely given a thought. The millions that live in poverty in their own countries are barely given a thought.

The simple but unpleasant truth is our leaders were not elected to solve problems thousands of kilometers away. It is far easier for them to do international virtue signaling than to confront the problems that face them at home. They should all be asked why must we continue to send billions of dollars in foreign aid around the world while four million Canadians starve every year? Why stand in Davos speaking histrionically about the progress made by one’s country towards the ambitions of the United Nations while we struggle to provide proper drinking water sources to the Indigenous? I challenge the proponents of globalization to venture into their countries’ industrial regions and explain to the working class why their jobs are being outsourced to various parts of Asia. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the problems with such outsourcing, as many countries realized that the source of the pandemic, the People’s Republic of China, was also the leading manufacturer of personal protective equipment. The loss of manufacturing from many parts of the West highlighted the tendency of officials to downplay the effects on those whose jobs relied upon strong domestic sectors. It would be inaccurate to characterize globalization as inherently negative but it is important to counter the embedded notion of its universal goodness.

Those who felt left behind decided to make their voices heard and counter those embedded notions. Enter the bombastic populists like US President Donald J. Trump or movements like Brexit in 2016. Promising to put their country first, they won mandates while railing against the liberal international order and the grand delusions of the international institutions that had promised peace and the fruits of globalization for all. While Mr. Trump is deserving of many criticisms levied against him, the nationalist approach taken was the necessary step for a country hobbling along after the disastrous wars in the Middle East and increased international engagement that had neglected many at home. His recent defeat serves solely as a repudiation of the man instead of the ideas.

In 1848, Lord Palmerston, a future Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in imperial Britain, once gave a speech in the House of Commons that will retain its place in time. He said, “our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” The national interest must be considered paramount. However, in arguing for a more nationalist approach from states, we must avoid and cleave away its poisonous appendage: the associations of ethnic nationalism. The accusations levied at Mr. Trump and other right-wing populists of pursuing such a course have a strong basis and the political discourse should be widely condemned. Avoiding ethnic nationalism while pursuing a national interest is the necessary approach by leaders to tend to their citizens. It now seems that such an approach is beginning and la pensée unique, long accepted, now has cracks in its armour.