Fear, fanatics and politics

Theirs is an obsession, no matter what many others say or what the “evidence” indicates. Given the looseness, untidy structure and voluntary platform on which political parties usually rest, quite often the glue that keeps the party from falling apart, ironically enough, comes from that group of party fanatics. Fanaticism, like gossip, rumour and propaganda, helps to turn and twist a community in unexpected ways.

Now when violence gets driven by fanaticism, well, that is a different thing. But the core principle is the same. Fanaticism comes from an excessive, blinding devotion to a cause, person or group. And with terrorism especially, one of the major objectives of the fanatic is to create fear. That fear is usually created through bombs, deaths and other severe forms of violence. Terrorism is really a war of the minds, especially when the terrorist, like the fanatic, feels justified.

And so, suicide missions for this “two-percent” group become no “big thing.” A religious fanatic is almost uncontrollable. Now space does not allow for a fuller discourse on fanaticism-driven terrorism, quite a controversial phenomenon in itself. For example we have heard that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter.”

Lower down the fanatic scale, we also have cricket fanatics, steelband fanatics, etc. Some even express pride in calling themselves “fanatics,” for example, a West Indies cricket team fanatic or a Los Angeles Lakers basketball team fanatic. With steelband, we even hear about the “panatics.”

Locally, however, the group that really intrigues me is the political party fanatic. I have heard “No matter what dey say Prof, I am a Panday man.” Then we have seen printed on red jerseys “PNM til ah dead.” Listen to a letter-writer in last Thursday’s Newsday (Dec 30): “Quite frankly, with the exception of the crime situation I am feeling really good that we have a bunch of truly dedicated men and women who are indeed serving the people with a compassion such as I have never seen before in this country. Less (sic) you call me a PP fanatic that is not the case.”

Note the exaggerations and generalisations. Now some would say that this gentleman is right, and free to express his opinion. Others, especially those on the other side, would ask if he has been reading the papers or listening to the TV or radio recently. And note his last sentence, almost a confession: “Less (sic) you call me a PP fanatic that is not the case.”

Fanaticism thrives on a set of well-kept values and beliefs. It assimilates the values and beliefs which fit his mould and rejects those that bring psychological tension and discomfort. Reason is a quick casualty. Through a set of well-oiled psychological mechanisms, fanaticism protects and justifies itself, resisting criticism and social disapproval. Two such techniques are (1) cognitive dissonance reduction and (2) Sigmund Freud’s well known defence mechanisms.

But the most sinister element of all is the dislike, often the hatred of others, which the fanatic nurtures. Fanaticism gains strength by having an enemy. And in party politics, “enemies” are discovered or created in numbers, especially at election time. Fanaticism is something to fear. It is fanaticism which leads to genocide and ethnic cleansing. Fanatics are quite dogmatic, and in the case of racial or religious fanaticism, irretrievably prejudiced and ethnocentric.

Now democracy needs political parties, and moreso in fair and free contestation. But the foundation philosophies of democracy catered very little or not at all for the irrational, the fanatic, the terrorist, the supremacy of emotion over reason. These trespassing elements become significant not so much by their numbers but in their diffused effects upon the rest.

In this multi-ethnic country, given the increasing benefits to be derived from belonging, financing or “working for” a political party, the voice of reason beyond self-interest is regretfully becoming less and less of a contributing commodity. What we in this small society, like quite a few others, are recognising is that the things that are necessary to mobilise and sustain political parties seem to be the very things that contaminate and subvert good governance. But what is the alternative? Is there really hope for a “new politics?”

Professor Ramesh Deosaran, a former Independent Senator, has written several books on social psychology and criminology.