Has natural selection allowed inherent goodness in all? Do our genes carry the blueprint of a good society where individuals exhibit love, altruism and cooperation? Why don’t humans prey on each other?  How do universal principles emerge from remarkably varied cultures? These profound questions are addressed by Dr Nicholas Christakis in his book Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society.

Christakis is a brilliant scientist and a master storyteller. He is of the view that genes not only affect the structure and function of the body and mind but also of society. Natural Selection has formed us as social animals with room for love, friendship, cooperation, learning, and the ability to recognise the uniqueness of others. Practical and moral good is sort of programmed within us, shining forth irrespective of cultural variations. Through extensive analysis of historical records and data along with social experiments, Christakis distils what he calls “the social suite”—eight core observations that emerge as cultural universals.

The social suite encompasses behaviours at the individual level, level of partners/offsprings and level of society. Christakis meticulously investigates many historic examples where unintentional and intentional communities were formed. For unintentional communities, he examines all the historic shipwrecks where a group of people are isolated. From the accounts of survivors and third-party records, he analyses some underlying characteristics of such isolated groups and how individuals tend to behave.

The one remarkable shipwreck story he never fails to repeat took place in 1864 on Auckland Island, 290 miles south of New Zealand. On January 3, 1864, the Grafton wrecked on the southern part of the island where a crew of five men from five different countries got stranded. On May 11, 1864, the Invercauld wrecked on the northeastern part of the island and 19 members landed on the rocky beach with steep cliffs. In 1865, both groups were rescued with all five members of the Grafton surviving while the Inverclaud could afford only three.

The Grafton group had started by saving a life. One member was very ill during the incident. However, the rest didn’t abandon him. This altruistic behaviour laid the foundation for their cooperative relationship. The group members were skilled and resourceful. They formed a sort of school and taught each other mathematics and foreign language. This act of teaching-learning prevented the formation of a strong hierarchy and a strong leader. The group democratically elected Captain Musgrave as the head. He demonstrated good leadership which was not totalitarian in nature.

On the other hand, the Inverclaud group started by abandoning one of its members at the bottom of the cliff. Their foundations for a cooperative relationship faltered and fortified the “every man for himself” attitude. Moreover, their leader, Captain Dalgarno, exhibited poor leadership with a lack of concern for others and more emphasis on his own survival. So it was technical expertise, selfless leadership and cooperation that were some of the key features that ensured the maximum survivability of the Grafton group.

The aforementioned observations in the case of isolated communities cannot be applied directly to political science though some similarities can be highlighted. In the coming weeks, India will take part in the national elections to choose the next government. The governing party was given a resounding mandate in 2014 elections, to generate employment, create wealth and improve the standard of living.

The party then had the leadership to deliver this mandate. As time progressed, the goal shifted from individual specific improvements to national level improvements. The narrative changed from jobs, healthcare, and education to national security and national pride. Such dilution of individual welfare and the promotion of group objectives is characteristic of commune behaviour. Add to this a strong leader with a strong hierarchy and the weakening of the decision-making process by involving individuals with no expertise, which has rendered an ineffective governance structure.

Similar to the Inverclaud group, the governing party started with abandonment (of senior leaders and minority communities). Neglecting individual aspirations and strict allegiance to nation and leader seems to be the underlying theme. The governance hierarchy is strong, prohibiting the emergence of alternate leaders.

This trend is now challenged by the Opposition which is an ensemble of regional and national leaders. They share similar characteristics with that of the Grafton group. Their vision is to start by not abandoning but including all the individuals irrespective of economic or cultural variations. Their hierarchy seems weak, thus encouraging the formation of multiple leaders. They attempt to include individuals with expertise in the decision-making process. Finally, they seem to focus more on the goals of individuals than the goals of the nation.

Leadership along with “mild hierarchy” may be the way forward for India. No leader is not an ideal situation. The presence of a leader helps reduces internal fights and stabilises the group. Perhaps the most important function of a leader is to facilitate information flow (communication) and that’s where the current leadership fails miserably. Science has been watered down to a belief system. Crucial data for many domains is withheld from publication. There is always a sense of emergency to communicate feats like Mission Shakti, yet there’s lethargy to apologise for pedestrian bridges. A strong leader creates a strong hierarchy while a good leader weakens the hierarchy.

Does India need a strong leader or a good set of leaders is an experiment worth exploring. I believe that the ability to forgo individuality and identify with a collective is a short-term phenomenon. In the long run, individuality triumphs over collective goals. The former will be validated if the governing party wins while the latter will be validated if the Opposition wins.  

In the grand scheme of things, we carry within us the fundamental building blocks of a good society. In the battle of good vs evil, the evil is a mutation which will eventually be shrugged off as a minor inconvenience.