This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on October 31, 2022 - November 6, 2022

In this age of polarisation that might lead to war, one question we must consider is: how can eight billion people with diverse cultures, histories, institutions, languages and values live with each other?

Can common values be established and used to facilitate mutual understanding to build collaborative relationships?

War and peace are part of humanity’s story. As American sociologist Charles Tilly said, “War makes states and states make war.”

Hunter/gatherers kill and foray for food, while farmer/settlers prefer to grow their own food and have peace, but will make war when their food and security is threatened. Whenever there is war, ways will be found to have peace, and wherever peace is in place for too long, someone will benefit from war. In a situation of disorder, order wins, and in a situation of order, disorder wins. War and peace are dynamic interactions from causes that are not completely rational or purely emotional.

For over 70 years after World War II, we have lived under a unipolar multilateral order, in which America set the basic rules. But with the rise of new powers, a multipolar, multilateral order is evolving. The West, which accounts for more than 40% of world wealth but only one-eighth of the population, wants to preserve the status quo, arguing that the world should be a rules-based order, underpinned by freedom and democracy. They argue that rising autocracies have different values, and so these must be contained or constrained. However, in a world of greater diversity, different values and priorities are inevitable.

Values form part of human identity and the basis of groupings. Humans gather together with common values, which give them shared identity, against which they may fight off all challengers. These values can be ordered according to scientific criteria or religious/moral criteria. For example, economic or financial value can be ordered in terms of common price and currency. The eurozone is a financial area bound by the same currency, on top of European values. However, Christian values are not identical to Islamic values, nor do they map identically to Chinese, Indian or African values.

Common values, therefore, are bound to overlap each other, and each value cannot be considered in isolation, because of entanglement with other values. One value is often contingent on another; for example, one culture may value blood ties more highly than just social relationships.

In other words, values are relative, not absolute, and therefore some values cannot be compared rationally, but more often than not, must be viewed from an emotional perspective. For example, a monetary value can be judged by the price denominated in one particular currency, but moral values are not so easily measured by strict scientific criteria.

The West prefers a “one-size-fits-all” unipolar order that is determined by one set of universal liberal values, defined as “rule of law, democracy, freedom, human rights, equality”. But individual values may conflict with group values. Similarly there are differences in group values, so there is always the question of how the group enforces these values. Inevitably, there will be bargaining between different parties, and failing any compromise, this will lead to conflicts, violence or war.

Politics today is defined less by economic or ideological concerns than by questions of identity. Each group believes that their identities, defined by national, religious, ethnic, sexual, gender or other criteria, are not receiving adequate recognition.

How do we achieve a more universal understanding of human dignity, without which there will be conflict? One binding feature in diverse relationships is toleration and moderation.

As American political scientist Francis Fukuyama suggests, in America and elsewhere, left-wing parties pushed for greater recognition of human rights and equality, instead of trying to build social cohesion around moderation. On the other hand, right-wing parties feel that too much diversity is destroying the “purity” of their identities, such as white Christian beliefs. The rising tide of immigration has prompted the swing towards right-wing identity politics, such as Donald Trump-style populism or nationalism.

All political scientists recognise that polarisation of identities can easily mutate to fascism, demonisation of others and erosion of social trust and cohesion. Thus, at the global level, the attempt to build an Anglo-Saxon white alliance (including Japan) that identifies itself with liberal values as a bulwark against autocracies (or those that disagree with the West) is dividing the world into at least three blocs. In this matrix, the emerging economies like India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa want to avoid taking sides, but reserve the right to decide on their own.

Ultimately, common values boil down to what is good governance in any society.

Chicago geopolitical scientist John Mearsheimer argues that there is a difference between values, understanding and governance rules. He identifies two types of liberals. One is Modus Vivendi liberals, where rights are all about individual freedom to act without government interference. Freedom of the press and the right to own property are examples of the values that are embraced by this group. There are also progressive liberals who believe that individual rights and freedoms require more state intervention in terms of rules, laws and enforcement. The difference between the two types of liberalism lies in social engineering. Progressive liberalism is interventionist in spirit.

This form of interventionist ideology inevitably invites push-back. If there is not enough moderation and toleration, meaning “adapt, live and let live”, then conflict and polarisation follow.

In a world with a mix of different values, someone has to keep the peace. Unfortunately, the unipolar power has shifted away from diplomacy towards military intervention. This explains why we are increasingly heading towards military conflict as rising powers may not want to bow to the unipolar power.

Mearsheimer argues that realism means that the unipolar power no longer has the economic nor military might to enforce rules according to its wishes. Progressive liberalism demands that nations be subordinate to universal human rights that are enforced by a higher body. That global architecture does not exist.

Thankfully, differences do not have to mean enmity and animosity against each other. Dialogue requires dignity and respect for each other’s differences, including the right to consult and arrive at compromises or consensus, including how to resolve differences through negotiations rather than using force or arms.

Thus, one important common value is the respect for plurality or differences which form the common bond. Opposite views should not be false binaries, but are complementary to each other. This is the view of Nils Bohr, the Nobel laureate for quantum physics.

Human beings are not robots that can mechanically decide on differences. Common values mean that human beings share different emotions that overlap each other, but these do not have to be irreconcilable differences. We live in an interconnected and interdependent world. Humanity has always lived with each other, sometimes in peace, sometimes at war, but by and large, common sense demands that we live with each other peacefully. That is the highest common value of all.

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on global issues that affect investors

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.