The pandemic of incivility: Can we stop it from afflicting our country?

Bengal of the past was often eulogised for its culture, religious harmony, tolerance and prosperity. During the Islamic Bengal Sultanate, founded in 1352, Bengal was a major trading nation in the world. It was a growing "civilisation" and a mighty one too. Bengal was called Gangaridae by the Greeks, and Greek historians noted that Alexander the Great withdrew from India anticipating a counter attack from an alliance of Gangaridae.

The Liberation War of 1971, which created Bangladesh (out of East Pakistan, former East Bengal), left the country with a broken social and economic infrastructure. After some initial hiccups, the country started growing at reasonable rates. The growth accelerated in more recent years, making it one of the fastest growing countries in the world. However, the country lagged behind in social engineering. Growth was not accompanied by concomitant improvements in civility.

This is not surprising. Growth can generate wealth over a relatively short time period through the right policies and market incentives, but changes in behaviour and attitudes can be a long haul. Professor Forni of John Hopkins University notes (in Choosing Civility) that changes in civility can indeed be very complex. It encompasses learning how to connect successfully and live well with others with courtesy, politeness, mutual respect, fairness and good manners. And while Daniel Bell notes in his The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism that "economic growth has become the secular religion of advancing industrial societies", Benjamin Friedman observes in The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth that it is wrong to assume that only market incentive and government economic policies will automatically lead to social and political development.

Incivility and intolerance have almost become a pandemic; most of the countries in the world are affected by it. No hard data exist on the rise of incivility in Bangladesh, but it is apparent in the conduct of everyday life. It is not only the high level of corruption, which points towards greed and uncivil disconnect between institutional service providers and the public; it is visible on social media, in work environments (staff harassment), in educational institutions, within families, in shops and on the streets. The show of wealth and political muscle buy fear or favour, and cronies of influential and wealthy persons roam fearless, threatening and extracting favours and trampling rules of law. These talk tons about incivility and its growing scourge at all levels. 

It is not Bangladesh only; most other countries, and even the more advanced countries, are not immune to the scourge of growing incivility—civility being defined as "the free and respectful exchange of different ideas". In the US, eight out of 10 Americans believe that the lack of civil discourse in the political system is a serious problem; 82 percent of respondents to a 2011 survey felt that political advertisements were too "nasty", and 72 percent believed that political commercials were "inappropriate". Political incivility has been linked to reduced trust in the legitimacy of political candidates, political polarisation and policy gridlock. Incivility in America today continues to erode the image of the once "great country"  and rude behaviour is becoming the "new normal," according to the fourth annual study titled Civility in America: A Nationwide Survey.

Other "great" countries and "civilisations" are also succumbing to this mad decline into incivility. The process of "taking back control" from the EU is disrupting both UK and EU parliaments, and the toxic speeches of Nigel Farage in the EU parliament is fuelling this discord. Belarus is seeing thousands march on its streets as the country's political crisis deepens, India is tripping on racial discord, political bickering and disharmony, and the arrogant Middle East is still nesting deep in incivility.

But why should we be concerned with incivility if a country is doing well in terms of economic progress? The answer is simple. Incivility is toxic, and "the consequences of incivility is very high in the long run", notes Asjadul Karim in the Financial Express. He notes that it makes "people quarrelsome, less cooperative and highly intolerant." In Bangladesh, incivility is on the rise because of, inter alia, "ill considered, intolerant activities of political parties as well as by some political leaders, either due to the lack of awareness or misconceptions". It is eating into the political process too.

According to Anthony Pagden, a political scientist and a historian, "only the civilised can know what it is to be civilised" (1988), implying that for the uncivilised, there is no appreciation of good or civil behaviour. Incivility breeds incivility and this downward spiral can sink a society into barbarism, from which it will take years, even decades, to escape.

We worry about incivility because it is contagious; prosperity and incivility breeds deadly arrogance and ego, which is often falsely garbed as "moralistic behaviour". And we worry about incivility because the brunt of incivility is borne by the poor, who are helpless and who are conditioned to take the unpleasant outcomes of incivility as their "destiny".

Incivility in our society, or for that matter any society, cannot be weeded out overnight, nor can it be ordered to vanish. These habits, acquired through years of poor behavioural norms, will require a long time, even generations, to get rid of.

It will require actions from the very preliminary level of schooling through to higher levels of education, to public and private print and electronic media, to forming regulations on ethical behaviour in work places and in parliaments. It will require giving due emphasis on it in the speeches and talks of public figures, at all levels, particularly at local levels, which are the primary breeding grounds of discontent.

And more importantly, it will require establishing good moral values.

Civility and morality are not the same thing. Civility can exist without morality; it does not require one to be moral to be nice to someone. Indeed, civility can be hypocritical in that immorality and civility can be combined for deadly immoral outcomes. It is therefore important to be very careful about the moral underpinnings of society to bring the best out of civility, or for giving civility a basis to do good. Terrence D Olson writes in Civility and Being Moral: "When civility is a utilitarian adoption of behaviours whose purpose is to get one's way or to avoid disagreements, the words and smiles designed to keep the interaction from getting out of hand are more hypocritical than polite". We need moral foundations to avoid such outcomes.

Transforming the country into a "civilisation" requires much more than "prosperity". In fact, the run for prosperity can generate a dynamics of incivility, due to contending claims, competition and intolerance. The rise of a habitation into civilisation (where civility rules) require far more than just masses of people living together.

The complex interaction between prosperity, morality and civility shows how difficult this task can be. But we can stop it. Our social thinkers and policymakers need to grasp the details of interaction to give us a society that our coming generations deserve.

Dr Atiqur Rahman, formerly of BIDS, Dhaka, Bangladesh is an economist, ex-adjunct professor at the John Cabot University, Rome, and ex-Lead Strategist of IFAD, Rome, Italy.