When We Ignore the Cracks, We Deserve the Collapse
When We Ignore the Cracks, We Deserve
the Collapse
To understand what responsible governance looks like, it
helps to examine what happens when it fails. History shows a recurring pattern:
when wealth concentrates in a few hands, when corruption is tolerated in small
doses, and when public frustration goes unanswered, political extremes find
opportunity. Instability does not appear suddenly. It builds, layer by layer.
Across nations, periods of inequality and perceived moral
drift have often preceded sharp political turns. When institutions appear
compromised, and leaders seem unaccountable, voters begin searching for
forceful alternatives.
In India, the rise of Narendra Modi did not happen in
isolation. It followed years in which corruption scandals eroded public trust,
even as the country made measurable economic progress in several areas. Growth
alone was not enough to calm public anger. The perception that corruption was
unchecked created a demand for a decisive corrective.
Modi’s messaging was disciplined and emotionally resonant. He
spoke of development, national pride, strength, and efficiency. For many
citizens, it felt like a necessary reset. Yet alongside those promises stood
the ideological influence of the RSS, whose vision of nationalism has long been
debated. Even Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, during the fragile years after
independence, had warned against communal polarization and the dangers of
ideological extremism overwhelming institutional balance.
The frustration with corruption opened the door. The ideology
walked through it.
Over time, some citizens have begun questioning whether the
promise of development was matched by institutional strengthening, or whether
polarization deepened instead. The lesson is not about one individual alone. It
is about how unresolved governance failures create space for ideological
consolidation.
The United States offers a parallel lesson in a different
context.
Donald Trump did not arrive without precedent. He had already
governed for four years. His style of leadership, confrontational tone,
disregard for certain institutional norms, and reliance on division were
visible during his first term. Yet many voters chose to overlook that record.
Some believed the disruption was necessary. Others convinced themselves that he
would moderate in a second term. Still others assumed that institutional
guardrails would contain excesses.
Instead, the signals remained consistent. The rhetoric did
not soften. The approach did not moderate. In many ways, the path of disruption
intensified.
This is an important point. Leaders rarely transform their
governing philosophy simply because voters hope they will. When patterns are
visible in one term, expecting a reversal without structural change is optimism
untethered from evidence.
Different communities projected different hopes onto Trump’s
return. Some Muslim voters believed he would pressure Pakistan regarding Imran
Khan. Some Hindu voters believed he would take a harder stance against Islamic
extremism. Many Latino voters hoped for broader economic opportunity. A larger
share of Black voters than in previous cycles saw him as a figure of strength
who could challenge entrenched systems.
Each group saw a possibility. Each weighed dissatisfaction
with the status quo against the risks of repetition.
But political memory matters. When voters ignore documented
behavior, they gamble not on promises, but on wishful reinterpretation.
What both India and the United States demonstrate is not
merely the power of charismatic leadership, but the vulnerability created by
accumulated public frustration. In India, corruption fatigue created an appetite
for ideological nationalism. In America, economic anxiety and institutional
distrust fueled populist disruption. In both cases, smaller governance failures
paved the way for larger political shifts.
It is tempting to call such leaders mistakes. They are not
accidents. They are outcomes.
When corruption is tolerated because it seems manageable, it
compounds. When misinformation is excused because it serves short-term goals,
it normalizes distortion. When voters dismiss warning signs in favor of the
promise of strength, consequences follow.
History shows that when the imbalance grows too extreme,
correction eventually comes. But correction is rarely gentle. Social unrest,
institutional strain, and economic instability often precede recalibration.
The solution is not just personality replacement. It is civic
discipline.
If citizens value truth, they must defend it consistently. If
past performance signals risk, it must be weighed honestly. If institutions
matter, they must be protected even when they constrain leaders we support.
Democracies erode through normalization of exaggeration, of
division, of selective memory.
Leaders reflect the societies that elevate them. When voters
overlook evidence and elevate hope over accountability, they shape the outcome.
The cycle can break, but only when principle outweighs
personality and memory outweighs momentary anger.
Otherwise, disruption becomes habit, and the cost grows
heavier each time.
Comments
Post a Comment