All For Vital National Interests

It is no longer the Malthusian prophecy of gloom and doom threatened by an explosion of human population on Planet Earth. The situation is the other way round. Earlier, population control programmes were aided in various ways and campaigns, though China’s one-child policy promotion was ridiculed in the capitalist world. Crisis of demography stares at a world, hitherto worried about too many pregnancies, too frequently and until very late. The story is about too many babies in the past and too few in the present, with the prospect of a crisis situation in the future. If overpopulation was the source of immense fear until the 1990s, the new century has started its first quarter with considerable consternation. Gripped by fears over the likely turmoil, a sharp population decline might have in store for humankind, nations are desperate to grapple with the problem.

In the 1970s, Radio Nepal carried several times a day the exhortation: Son or daughter, two is the right number. Most Nepali elders used to say until the 1950s, “more the merrier”; the slogan might stage a comeback in relative moderation. The cycle of poverty was attributed to a high fertility rate. In Nepal, motherhood was a theme against too early, too frequently, too many and too late.  Demographers assess that the Malthusian prediction is no longer a worry. Their latest dire warnings and unsettling questions pertain to the global trend of low fertility rates. Better health services and improved living standards register an increasing number of nuclear families, live-in partnerships and single life in many countries, especially among those who can afford larger families. 

Ironic advance

Today, the fear of the fast fall in fertility rate grips many a nation. Among them are the three superpowers: the United States, China and Russia. Population is shrinking in these countries, as is also the case in South Korea and Singapore, among many others. What will be the implications of the impending population collapse? Predictable to a large extent. Scientific breakthroughs and technological advances might be an answer. But aspirations and demands of succeeding generations progressively soar—a running challenge for governments.  Ironically, the industrially advanced and highly rated democracies are adversely affected the most. Towards the end of 2024, Japan introduced a plan to schedule a four-day work routine for workers with the hope of reversing the decline in fertility growth.

Perhaps Artificial Intelligence will help address the dearth of working hands. There is also the challenge of an ageing population and social security issues, including food, shelter, health and care. Are the elderly people to be abandoned? Is longevity to be treated with less enthusiasm, if not an accursed burden? How large a population does Earth have the capacity to support? There comes a time when population growth flattens and peters off to a downward turn. The industrially advanced nations were aware of this decades ago. Demographic experts kept them abreast of what was around the corner. But they just failed to take appropriate measures to cope with the eventuality.

A balance between human population growth and available resources without damaging the environment beyond limits is an ideal, but it is easier said than done. In a way, low fertility could be offset by migrants. The issue becomes dicey when political leaders decry the arrival of migrants in large numbers for fear of the new arrivals eroding local “cultural identity”. Identity politics has been making its presence felt all over the world these past couple of decades. The US and Europe used to laud their emphasis on the “melting pot”. Not any longer. Some of them make no qualms about the need for immigrants to “integrate” into the mainstream culture. Some are not explicit but leave no ambiguity about their thoughts. Their word-play and gestures tell it all.    

For long at the beck and call of the United States, Europe now struggles with itself for pursuing a new direction that cuts down heavily on its dependency on the superpower first cousin on the other side of the Atlantic.

Handy experience

Trump, the harsh and brash superpower wielder, tries to wheel out demands at great speed and wangle what he desires. The chastened leaders from all continents are beginning to learn their lessons the hard way. Some of them are beginning to seek alternative trade markets, reduce security alliance with the US and ease overreliance on any single country. They are, however, hesitant so far in repaying the American president with the very coin he handed them. Few like Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney choose to become Trump’s black sheep. They are prepared to stand up to the threat-spewing superpower leader, now in his second year in office. 

Out of the slumber, the pro-war section realises things look grim beyond any quick grip in a steeply uphill undertaking. Dragging its feet will only mean delay in stemming the decline and postponing diagnosis and prescription. Things are at risk without a brisk pace for taking control of a steeper slide that is bound to occur when others move fast and carve new space for themselves. The need for both sides of conflicts is to at least trim their differences with sincerity in a spirit of give and take. 

The sales pitch is repeated too often for effective persuasion. People know how big powers coerce weaker countries to comply with their demands. Under the circumstances, few states have the drive and resources to reject proposals considered not in the vital interests of their nations. Double deals and stage-managed appeal will not work on people keen on serving their own fundamental interests. Having had bitter experiences caused by ruthless bargaining and deeply dubious pressure, they are getting to be smarter now.  

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)