John Samuel
“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness , it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled up on”
Jesus ( Mathew 5:13)
“Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.
We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family”
Chief Seattle (approx. 1852)
A letter in response to a U.S. Government inquiry about buying tribal lands
We are face to face with an impending ecological crisis. As we finish the first decade of the 21st century , the planet and earth and the forces of nature are staring at us- with a sense of revenge.; revenge against the injustice of exploiting the earth, and all that belonged to the earth- in search of pleasures and profit. The impending ecological crisis raise profound moral questions about the choices and patterns of our life, development paradigm as well as about our universal responsibility to each other, earth and biosphere.
It is time to locate the real crisis of food and economy , within the context of the impending ecological crisis that can harm the very sustenance and future of the earth. The ongoing discussion and debates on global warming and climate change should help us to think beyond the immediate concern about technical negotiation of climate change to the larger ethical crisis that confront the very essence of humanity and human civilization. It is time to develop effective moral and political response based on a shared commitment to Ecological and planetary justice.
The issues related to Global Warming and Climate Change acquired a sense of urgency in the context of the ongoing negotiations in relation to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The ongoing discussions and debate on climate change has multiple subtexts of political economy, international politics and paradigm of development. Climate Change negotiation and discussions clearly brings out the unequal and unjust relationships between the rich countries in the global north and those countries- at the receiving end of the colonialism, extractive economic relationship and poverty. The discourse also signifies the ongoing economic and political tension between the rich countries and the emerging economies such as China and India, though it may not necessary in the interest of the large number of citizens in the respective countries.
Though everyone is concerned about the disastrous effect of the global warming, at the core of the climate change negotiation are the economic interests of the economic and political elites in rich and emerging countries. The sub-texts of climate change negotiations are the politics of technology, market, trade, economic growth and aid architecture. On the one hand rich countries are keen to capture the market for “green-technology” through the old trinity of aid, trade and debt. And on the other hand there is a concern that the emerging economies of China and India would further exasperate the climate vulnerability as well as the market potential of the rich countries.
The technical discussions and priorities on adaptation and mitigation are often a smoke screen for the underlying political economy of climate change. Mitigation in terms of clear commitment to quantifiable reduction of greenhouse gas emission and adaptation to meet the challenges of climate change should form the twin pillars of an effective response strategy. The rich countries and the respective civil society formations and aid agencies often give more stress to adaptation strategies in poor countries. This is important. However, advocacy for adaptation strategies in poor countries, without the necessary political pressure within the respective countries for quantifiable mitigation measures point out to the double speak even among the civil society actors in the global north.
While in the last twenty years new forms of disaster capitalism have emerged, there is indeed a possibility of the emergence of a new wave of Climate Capitalism- driven by new market for green technology, carbon-trading, technology transfers, adaptation funds etc. Multiple actors of the state, market and civil society are beginning to smell new opportunities of the emerging markets of “green technology”, adaptation funds and potential opportunities for economic growth. One the one hand poor communities and countries are at the receiving end of climate injustice, changing weather pattern, natural disasters, decreasing food production and unprecedented scarcity of water. On the other hand there is economic-development and consumption paradigm that undermines the very sustainability and bio-diversity of this planet. On the one hand there is a lot of talk about the disastrous effect of global warming. And on the other hand there is a fierce economic competition and political tussle between the rich and emerging countries to harvest on the anticipated Climate Capitalism. These dichotomies and paradoxes are at the core of the moral and ethical dilemma posed by the ongoing discourse on Climate Change.
Climate Change and natural disasters do not respect the territorial boundaries of the nation-states. Hence, it is important to locate the ongoing discourse beyond the narrow confines and interests of the nation-state to a moral and ethical plane of ecological and planetary justice. It is important to locate the discourse within the framework of human rights, and social and economic justice. The issue of global warming raises a deeper moral dilemma: Isn’t it immoral to promote an unsustainable consumption-based economic growth model that would make disastrous consequence to the coming generation as well as to very sustainability of the planet?. Without discussing the core problem of unsustainable and unjust consumption and economic growth model that survive on extractive relationship between the rich and poor countries and the rich people and earth, we can not have a morally viable discourse on the politics of global warming and climate change. The ethics and politics of climate change need to precede the economic calculus of climate change. Hence, it is all the more important to bring the issue of human rights and justice to the heart of the discourse on global warming.
.
Removal of injustice demands the advancing of justice. Hence it is time to talk about ecological and planetary justice. The root of justice is ethics. These ethical roots of Justice are to a large extent derived from the inter-faith legacies. Justice constitutes a set of moral conditions and choices to advance fairness through equality of human persons, human dignity, capability as well as universal human responsibility to each other and to the sustainability of bio-sphere and this planet.
Human rights are universal, indivisible and inalienable. Justice too is indivisible. The justice perspective precedes the human rights perspective in many ways. Regarding the right to food, we must consider both ecological justice and economic and social justice. These are indivisible. You cannot talk about one without the other. The issue of economic growth can not be discussed without understanding the historical and ecological injustice involved at the core of extractive power-relationships of colonialism, imperialism and exploitation. From the perspective of ecological justice, the impacts of climate change are unequal and unjust. Poor countries and poor people contribute least to the climate change and are affected most by the consequence of it. G8 countries create more than 40% of emissions. China and India will soon overtake the G8 countries in this respect. Poor people and island nations are already experiencing the adverse effects of variations in the weather patterns. Recently, millions of people in Philippines have been affected by tropical storms and flooding. We must be aware of these impacts and what it truly takes to mitigate them. The irony is that even the new enthusiasm of various conferences on climate change has a high carbon footprint. Many of us flew here for these discussions and we are staying in an air-conditioned hotel , eating imported food.
There is a profound irony in the ongoing development paradigm which is based on high energy intensive and carbon-emission technologies and life styles and at the same time trying finding solutions with the same problem. As long as we – our life styles, modes of transports and modes of consumption- are a part of the problem, how can we find a viable solution without altering the content and character of the development paradigm- that is still based on the industrial and extractive character of the modern capitalist model.
Interfaith Perspective on Ecological Justice.
Without discussing mode of living, modes of production, modes of consumption, modes of technology and modes of economic growth, how can we have any meaningful discussion on ecological and planetary justice? This deep paradox between the gap between the walk and talk, deeds and words, reality and aspiration raise the issue of moral vacuum within the mainstream climate change discourse
The interfaith perspective on justice and human rights would help to build a more ethical discourse .The idea of human dignity is the cornerstone of human rights and justice . The notion of human dignity can be traced to various ideas and experience of the divinity. In almost all religious and faith traditions one can see affirmation of human dignity as well as the idea of divine. In that sense human dignity can be seen as a reflection of the divine- a reflection of a universal ideal- omnipotent and omnipresent- beyond the time and space.
The bridge between dignity and divinity is the constant search for truth and freedom- a perennial source of human creativity and explorations. The ethical as well as existential link between human beings and nature signify an eternal planetary communion: a commitment to share the resources of nature- air, water, earth, trees, forests, rivers, hills, birds, animals and every expressions of life- the entire biodiversity and the living species. The notion of sharing is what makes communions an ethical act. This divine compact of planetary communion is violated and broken by the human greed to accumulate, acquire and subjugate.
The ethical act of sharing is displaced by the exploitative acts of extractive accumulation, subjugation and injustice. The violation of the compact of planetary communion between of all living specious is symptomatic of a moral crisis of the erosion of divinity as well as human dignity in human lives and choices.
When Bhagavad-Gita says “ Loko samstha Sukinobhavnthu”( let all in the world be well)- it reflects a primordial commitment and compact of planetary well-being and communion. Vedas and Upanishads clearly talk about the life-centric perspective- as distinct from an anthropo-centric world view. In the Mount Sermon when Jesus said “ You are the salt of the earth”( Mathew 5:13)- it was to remind us of the human responsibility towards the earth and other living specious. Salt is the metaphor of life, sustainability ,preservation, and shared resources- symbolizing the elemental and life constituting character of human responsibility .In Islam, Buddhism and all other faith traditions one can trace the same ethical assertion about the universal human responsibility. St. Francis of Assisi helped us to understand the divinity and spirituality in a sort of mystical unity of human beings with all the living species. In fact this ethical assertion of human responsibility is what makes justice and human rights eminent moral choices of our times.
An inclusive ethical commitment to the sustainability and well-being of all living specious is at the core of planetary justice: a part and parcel of universal human responsibility. Ecological justice is an expression of the universal moral human responsibility to all earth and all expression of life- on the land, in the water, in the air, and within the sea or on the tops of mountains
Food Sovereignty and Right to Food.
Among many, there are two immediate concerns in the context of the possible consequence of global warming and changing weather patterns- as a consequence of Climate Change. The first one is the increasing instance of various natural disasters- which may or may not have a direct connection with climate change. The second one is the issue of food sovereignty. More and more communities and countries are losing their food sovereignty. Food sovereignty indicates the ability and power to control and manages the sources and modes of production of the food, within a given community or country. Food sovereignty involves the right of people and community over land, water and forests – that would enable them to control the sources and means of production. There is a decrease in the food production, part in many countries, particularly among the small and marginal farmers. This has to do with the changing weather pattern and increasing take over of agriculture by the corporate monopolies and rich countries. There is an increasing trend towards corporatization of agriculture and take over millions of hectares of land in Africa- at the cost of the small and marginal farmers and food sovereignty of communities and countries
Along with air and water, food is the most important elemental necessity for every living specious and human beings to survive. Right to food is the first among the enabling rights of human beings. The fast changing weather pattern – potential result of climate change- affect food sovereignty and right to food of communities and countries.
Food sovereignty has been taken from producers and farmers by their own nation-states and then by huge corporations that monopolize technology. The modern notion of Power is related to the monopoly of technology and knowledge. Monopoly and control over Technology is often used to take control over the food production and resources. Such corporatization of agriculture, in the name of “food security” – and “green revolution” is hardly green. Such efforts take away the viability and sustainability of small and marginal farming. This also would eventually make food less available, accessible and affordable. And eventually many communities and countries will be dependent on big companies and markets for their food. The lack of control of food would undermine the human rights to food.
The adverse impacts of climate change on ecosystems also affect sovereignty over food production. Firstly, life cannot adapt as quickly as the climate is changing. We are experiencing unprecedented instances natural disasters. Don’t blame God. This is not an accident of history. This is our making and comes from unequal and unjust power relationships of extracting and exploiting natural resources: forests, water, marine resources and air . Food decreases due to changing weather patterns- untimely rain, decreased rainfall, and unusual drought . Secondly, desertification decreases the amount of arable land. Thirdly, migration from rural to urban areas increases due to lack of water, natural disasters and the unviability of small and medium farming.Urban poor across the world are environmental, economic and social refugees.
The urban-centric, energy-intensive economic growth model induces rural urban migration at unprecedented level and further accentuates the high carbon-emitting economic growth model. This on the one hand affects the food production and viability of sustainable agriculture in the rural areas and on the other hand increases unprecedented level of human density in the urban areas- with consequent pressure on environmental resources, demand for water and resultant pollution. The increasing number of urban slums and urban poverty poses new challenges to the idea of food sovereignty and ecological sustainability.
Mining factories in the rural hinterlands are emitting both carbon and poor people. Instead of addressing poverty, factories are in the business of displacing and killing the poor. Polluting factories and corporatized agriculture will displace millions of marginal farmers and excluded communities at the receiving end of the extractive economic development paradigm. While the rich people waste millions of tons of food, there are hundreds of millions people who go bed hungry every single day. This is unjust. This is a result of ecological as well as economic injustice.
Biofuel and agro fuel are also produced and monopolized by huge transnational corporations. Land is used for fuel and not for food. Monopoly of technology and economy leads to corporatization of land, which leads to disempowerment of people, poverty, and food crisis.
The question is not merely about how much food is produced, but who is producing it and how and where and for whom.
We are once again witnessing a repetition of colonial sins with the way food is produced and distributed. Some of the new “revolutions” to combat climate change and promote food security are also manifestations of new colonialism. Millions of hectares of land in Africa are taken over by rich companies and rich countries. The soc-called new green revolution in Africa- Advancing the Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are promoted by some of the most powerful companies and countries of the world. While one may that we need to produce more food- one wonders whether such new corporatization of agriculture in Africa will further impoverish large majority of people experiencing hunger and injustice every single day. Apart from the question of how “green” are the proposed green revolution, there is a serious concern that in the proposed promise of food “security” – food sovereignty of the people of Africa and elsewhere will be compromised. As of now there is nothing much of “green” or “revolution” in the new search for monopoly control of natural resources and land in Africa.
The question is whether the “green’ revolution enriches the rich or enables the poor to have food on the plate. The new environmental and economic unviability of small and marginal farming also undermines the human dignity and human rights of farmers. Thousands of farmers in India committed suicide because their dignity is violated. Farmers are the most dignified people in the world. They produce with their mind, soul and body. A farmer would rather protect this dignity with his death than lose it through the dehumanization that comes with loss of control of production methods and the loss of food sovereignty. Pesticide resistance and patented crop varieties are among the many mechanisms that huge companies use to control production and ensure monopoly over nature. Yes, we need to produce more food. But who produces for whom , where and how do matter .
Sustainable and eco-friendly small scale agriculture and sustainable technology – are key to food sovereignty of impoverished communities and countries.
Food sovereignty of nations and people can only be realized by strengthening sustainable agriculture and protecting the right of small and marginal farmers to live in dignity. Governments must protect these without compromising the climate and environment.
The struggles for justice and human rights have to be at every level. Human right to food is non-negotiable. The adverse impact of climate change and corporatization of agriculture would undermine our right to food. We need to ask hard questions about the nature of consumption and the nature of economic growth model. Climate change is an issue of justice, as is food rights. A call to act for justice-ecological, economic and social- should precede the technical negotiations of climate change. If human dignity is rooted in divinity. The idea of divinity rooted in our search for truth. The truth is that there is something terribly wrong and immoral in the way exploit the beauty and bounty of the earth- all that what makes it a sustainable habitat for millions of living species. Such a truth should help us to be free- free to imagine different choices of life, consumption and living. A freedom that makes the earth and all in to sustain and thrive.
The time has come to rediscover ethical assertion by the Chief of Seattle at the dawn of modern civilization in the mid 19th century
“This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.”
(This is an expanded version of the key note presentation in the International Interfaith Consultation on Climate Change in Bangkok on October 1, 2009)
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Raaga …
John Samuel
Music makes memories intimate.
Rekindles nostalgia,
Of unfolding worlds within,
And beyond.
Music makes a magic,
Of the breeze deep within.
A Raga of Bhimsen Joshi
Stirs up the intimate worlds.
And the gush of youthful memories..
Of Sawai Gandharv
Of festivals.
Of moonlit nights,
Of motorcycle rides..
Of a tree...in a starry night
Smell of a winter.
Anticipating a spring.
Discovering
Everyday – sunrise, noon, evenings and moon
Smell of burgi at GaneshKhind.
A fountain in a circle,
Days of sunny drizzle..
Of Music, Cinema, Poetry, Politics
And Love.
Getting Lost
Rediscovering again and again
Learning new pathways.
The raga of a dawn
Makes me smile.
Music makes memories intimate.
Rekindles nostalgia,
Of unfolding worlds within,
And beyond.
Music makes a magic,
Of the breeze deep within.
A Raga of Bhimsen Joshi
Stirs up the intimate worlds.
And the gush of youthful memories..
Of Sawai Gandharv
Of festivals.
Of moonlit nights,
Of motorcycle rides..
Of a tree...in a starry night
Smell of a winter.
Anticipating a spring.
Discovering
Everyday – sunrise, noon, evenings and moon
Smell of burgi at GaneshKhind.
A fountain in a circle,
Days of sunny drizzle..
Of Music, Cinema, Poetry, Politics
And Love.
Getting Lost
Rediscovering again and again
Learning new pathways.
The raga of a dawn
Makes me smile.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Towards a Transformative Politics
John Samuel
What is Politics?
Politics is the dynamics and expressions of power relationships within and among human beings, society and institutions. Power is dynamic, relative, contextual and processeual. Power gets formalized in various institutional arenas- from family to the state. However, even formalized power may get in to different flux and expressions in different cultural and social contexts.
There are different locations, sources and process of power. Power can be expressed in poetry as well paintings; power also can be expressed through aggression and accumulation; through contestation and collaborations; through brutal war and lasting peace and through crimes as well as punishments. Such locations and sources are negotiated by contexts and culture. Locations and sources of power operate through language, resources, knowledge, technology, networks, and economy and above all human will to act and change a situation or condition. There are gentle as well as fierce expressions of power dynamics. Power can act horizontally, cyclically or vertically – depending on the context and institutional situation.
An understanding of the sources, dynamics and expression of power is important to understand and approach political process. Notions like “Power over”, Power with”, “Power to” and “Power within” help us to understand the multiple dimensions and process involved in politics. The most obvious and dominant form of organized Politics is based on the institutionalization of “power over”: power as a means to control, manipulate, dominate and even subjugate.
Such dominant modes of power operate through coercion or consent. When such coercive power construct consent – as ‘common-sense”- hegemonic power-relationships are formed in a society. In a modern and postmodern society such hegemonic power is managed and regulated by the State- by claiming both monopoly of and legitimacy to regulate power. Since State is expected to be the site of collaborations for managing the monopoly claims of power, those who have relative control over natural and economic resources tend to capture the state through either military might or majoritarian legitimation through the electoral politics. Though State makes a monopoly claim over statutory power – through “Rule of Law” and power over the “Law and order”, in reality the dominant modes of power get expressed and operated through the Military, Market and Media. This is precisely why those who control the State Power- seek to establish the legitimacy of their power through multiple negotiations and trade off with Military, Market and Media.
One has to understand and appreciate politics in plurality of process as well as expressions. This can only be done by decoding the institutional and institutionalized dimensions of power. There is politics of the State. Then there are other manifestations such as the politics of the people, politics of knowledge, politics of technology; politics of identity, geo-politics; national and international politics. Such manifestations of politics signify various institutionalization of power within a given space and time.
Personal too is political. There is politics in sex; politics of body; there is politics in rituals and religions and there is indeed politics in language. Politics operates in the bedroom, dining room, class rooms and board rooms. Every arena of human action has a power dimensions and relationships - and hence there is nothing which is apolitical. However, for the sake of analytical clarity, one has to make a distinction between micro-politics and macro-politics.
Micro and Macro-politics
Micro-politics is about the dynamics, locations and process of power-relations within family, immediate institutional or social community. Such micro-power relations get expressed through language, locations, attitude, behavior, knowledge as well as social and cultural legitimation process. Issues like gender, cast, race and religion operate actively at levels of individual , family level and community , through micro-politics. At an intimate level, micro-politics operates in terms of once choices and expression of sexuality as well as the experiences of pleasure and pain.
Micro-politics signifies the internalized genealogy and pathology of power. This is how over a period of time various gender roles are constructed to legitimize unequal and unjust power relations- in the structures and locations of family, religion and community. The most manifest form of micro-politics is the control over productive and reproductive sources. And this control is mostly expressed in terms of patriarchy that seeks to control women- as the most important reproductive source of life and living. Most of the unjust power-relationships codified in micro-politics of expected roles, and spaces- of body, life and life-worlds: in terms of rituals associated with birth, marriage and death. And in relation to sexual roles, pleasure and pains involved in orgasm- and sexual choices.
Social transformation requires intensive engagement with micro-politics- by challenging, changing, reforming and transforming to make it just and equitable. This involves changing language, attitude, behavior as well as spaces and expressions of power within the family and communities.
Macro-Politics is the dynamics of power-relationships among and between Institutions and institutionalized forms of power. Such institutions may include that of state, religion, market and civil society.
Institutions are expression of the grammar of power. By grammar I mean a formalized set of rules, norms and defined inter-linkages- legitimized by knowledge and norms. The modern paradigm of Macro-politics is mostly expressed in the power of the state, governments, governmentality and governance.
The nation-state derives its power from the legitimacy and legitmation of the constitution- with a claim of sovereignty and monopoly of power over a territory and people living in such a territory. Every constitution is constituted, through historical, knowledge, economic, social and cultural process- through various negotiations of power in all such spheres. The politics of the State is often the defining force of Macro-politics. Because the grammar of the power within and beyond a given nation-state determine the power-relationships in all other institutional arenas. The “statutory” legitimation process of market, civil society and religion are based on “regulation” of the power and politics of the state. Such constant negotiations and ‘regulations” of technology of power tend to create cultures of govermentality of power- in terms of legitimation, control as well as spaces.
The grammar of power- within micro and macro arena is often controlled by the institutionalization of knowledge, norms and historical and cultural ordering of life-worlds. This ordering of power is more often unequal and mostly unjust. Such unjust power-relationships get expressed through discrimination, deficit of dignity, exploitation, alienation and eventual dehumanization. So it is moral responsibility to humanize, deconstruct, decentralize and democratize power in all its forms and expressions.
Power can be an immense source of positive energy to create, to seek, to bridge, to build and to sustain. As a positive energy, power operates in an eternal cyclical interplay of “Shirsti” (creation) “Sthithi (sustenance) and Samhara. (destruction). And politics is everywhere- from bed room, to bath room, from class room to board room- in our taste-bud and language.- within our body and beyond. And human creativity and life involves the ability to learn and deal with power- in its million manifestations.
Towards Transformative Democratization
I am a proponent of the politics of transformative democratization: more of a political praxis that I have learned over a period time- through theorizing practice and practice that emerge out of a theory of change and world.
My politics is driven by a universal ethics- moral choices and value premises - informed by human dignity, equality, justice, responsibility to each other and the planet. It is informed and inspired by movements and struggles for economic, social, gender and ecological justice. My politics derives its moral legitimacy from various struggles and efforts to humanize the world- all through history- through care and love; through our creative and committed searches for making the world and planet a better place to live. My politics is about imaginative potential of human beings to influence and transform the world within them, around them and beyond- in constant search for freedom and justice. Democratization is at the core of it. Democratization can only happen when there is spaces for dissent as well dignity: spaces to protest as well to propose; spaces to imagine as well as innovate. Creativity, Community and Communication (through language and technology) are three aspect that make human different from animals. And democratization is a process to affirm and constantly rediscover the potential and possibilities of human creativity, community solidarity and communicative actions.
I tend to think that social and political transformation happen through a whole range of cumulative process for radical shifts as well reformist advocacy: through knowledge, language, technology, and institutions. Hence influencing of such cumulative process for reformation as well as radical shifts is key for transformative humanism and democracy.
Critiquing the institutionalized forms of power is the first step towards transforming the dynamics of power. Institutionalized and dominant forms of power tend to self-preserve through benign or malignant modes of tyranny and terror; coercion and consensus; and “common’ sense as well culture. If not constantly critiqued and challenged, all forms of institutionalized power can be oppressive, subjugating and dehumanizing. Hence, critiquing and transforming institutionalized power is an effort to resist dehumanization and relentlessly trying to humanize and democratize power.
This requires a combination of the politics of people, politics of knowledge, and politics of communication to challenge the dominating forms of power: whether it is the power of the state or power of the market or power of mafia.
My mission is to constantly work towards the humanization and democratization of structures and institutions of power through contestation, collaboration and cooperative action and communicative action - based on value of justice, freedom and equality of human persons. Such an approach seeks to bridge between the Ideal and Real. It may involve working in, working with and working beyond the institutionalized forms of power, without compromising the values of transformation.
I believe that every human action and institution needs to be historicized, problematised, politicized and democratized. Critical transformative approach involves consistent and constant critique of power and a commitment to challenge unjust power-relationship so as to humanize and democratize people, society, knowledge and institutions. Critical transformist approach to politics involves working within institution and working beyond institutions; such an approach involves resisting, engaging and persuading power-relationships to ensure justice as fairness and human dignity as the right to live in freedom.
There is a tendency of those in controlling the nodal locations of power to monopolize power- through claims of sovereignty. This monopolization of power to control natural, productive and reproductive resources, through ‘discipline” and promises of “security”, are at the root of unjust politics both in its micro and macro expressions.
So politics for me involves challenging and changing monopolization of power, and injustice that is inherent in such unequal and unjust power relationship. Politics for me challenging and changing unjust power-relationships to ensure a life of dignity, choices and freedom to all human beings. Politics for me is all about humanizing life-worlds as well quest for justice- towards sustainable, just and democratic society, governance and futures.
Politics for me is the democratization of power, knowledge, technology and language. Politics for me is the celebration of human dignity- through asserting and demanding human rights. Politics for me is to make change happen towards a just, sustainable, responsible world- without poverty and war. Politics for me is to fight injustice, exclusion, marginalization and dehumanization.
Politics for me is to take responsibility to imagine and suggest alternatives to unjust power-relationships. Politics for me is to imagine a utopia- a world without poverty and injustice where every person can live a life of dignity, freedom, enjoyment and responsibility. Politics for me is to listen to the voice of the last person. Politics for me is when every person can celebrate her/his dignity and right to dissent and development. Politics for me is to make market work for the people- not the other way around. Politics for is to accountability from all power-holders , State, Market and civil society. Politics for me is all about sovereignty of people- citizens- and the democratization of at levels of human action and institutions.
Politics for me is the courage of conviction to ensure sustainability of our planet, people, and eternal dreams for a joyful and justful world
What is Politics?
Politics is the dynamics and expressions of power relationships within and among human beings, society and institutions. Power is dynamic, relative, contextual and processeual. Power gets formalized in various institutional arenas- from family to the state. However, even formalized power may get in to different flux and expressions in different cultural and social contexts.
There are different locations, sources and process of power. Power can be expressed in poetry as well paintings; power also can be expressed through aggression and accumulation; through contestation and collaborations; through brutal war and lasting peace and through crimes as well as punishments. Such locations and sources are negotiated by contexts and culture. Locations and sources of power operate through language, resources, knowledge, technology, networks, and economy and above all human will to act and change a situation or condition. There are gentle as well as fierce expressions of power dynamics. Power can act horizontally, cyclically or vertically – depending on the context and institutional situation.
An understanding of the sources, dynamics and expression of power is important to understand and approach political process. Notions like “Power over”, Power with”, “Power to” and “Power within” help us to understand the multiple dimensions and process involved in politics. The most obvious and dominant form of organized Politics is based on the institutionalization of “power over”: power as a means to control, manipulate, dominate and even subjugate.
Such dominant modes of power operate through coercion or consent. When such coercive power construct consent – as ‘common-sense”- hegemonic power-relationships are formed in a society. In a modern and postmodern society such hegemonic power is managed and regulated by the State- by claiming both monopoly of and legitimacy to regulate power. Since State is expected to be the site of collaborations for managing the monopoly claims of power, those who have relative control over natural and economic resources tend to capture the state through either military might or majoritarian legitimation through the electoral politics. Though State makes a monopoly claim over statutory power – through “Rule of Law” and power over the “Law and order”, in reality the dominant modes of power get expressed and operated through the Military, Market and Media. This is precisely why those who control the State Power- seek to establish the legitimacy of their power through multiple negotiations and trade off with Military, Market and Media.
One has to understand and appreciate politics in plurality of process as well as expressions. This can only be done by decoding the institutional and institutionalized dimensions of power. There is politics of the State. Then there are other manifestations such as the politics of the people, politics of knowledge, politics of technology; politics of identity, geo-politics; national and international politics. Such manifestations of politics signify various institutionalization of power within a given space and time.
Personal too is political. There is politics in sex; politics of body; there is politics in rituals and religions and there is indeed politics in language. Politics operates in the bedroom, dining room, class rooms and board rooms. Every arena of human action has a power dimensions and relationships - and hence there is nothing which is apolitical. However, for the sake of analytical clarity, one has to make a distinction between micro-politics and macro-politics.
Micro and Macro-politics
Micro-politics is about the dynamics, locations and process of power-relations within family, immediate institutional or social community. Such micro-power relations get expressed through language, locations, attitude, behavior, knowledge as well as social and cultural legitimation process. Issues like gender, cast, race and religion operate actively at levels of individual , family level and community , through micro-politics. At an intimate level, micro-politics operates in terms of once choices and expression of sexuality as well as the experiences of pleasure and pain.
Micro-politics signifies the internalized genealogy and pathology of power. This is how over a period of time various gender roles are constructed to legitimize unequal and unjust power relations- in the structures and locations of family, religion and community. The most manifest form of micro-politics is the control over productive and reproductive sources. And this control is mostly expressed in terms of patriarchy that seeks to control women- as the most important reproductive source of life and living. Most of the unjust power-relationships codified in micro-politics of expected roles, and spaces- of body, life and life-worlds: in terms of rituals associated with birth, marriage and death. And in relation to sexual roles, pleasure and pains involved in orgasm- and sexual choices.
Social transformation requires intensive engagement with micro-politics- by challenging, changing, reforming and transforming to make it just and equitable. This involves changing language, attitude, behavior as well as spaces and expressions of power within the family and communities.
Macro-Politics is the dynamics of power-relationships among and between Institutions and institutionalized forms of power. Such institutions may include that of state, religion, market and civil society.
Institutions are expression of the grammar of power. By grammar I mean a formalized set of rules, norms and defined inter-linkages- legitimized by knowledge and norms. The modern paradigm of Macro-politics is mostly expressed in the power of the state, governments, governmentality and governance.
The nation-state derives its power from the legitimacy and legitmation of the constitution- with a claim of sovereignty and monopoly of power over a territory and people living in such a territory. Every constitution is constituted, through historical, knowledge, economic, social and cultural process- through various negotiations of power in all such spheres. The politics of the State is often the defining force of Macro-politics. Because the grammar of the power within and beyond a given nation-state determine the power-relationships in all other institutional arenas. The “statutory” legitimation process of market, civil society and religion are based on “regulation” of the power and politics of the state. Such constant negotiations and ‘regulations” of technology of power tend to create cultures of govermentality of power- in terms of legitimation, control as well as spaces.
The grammar of power- within micro and macro arena is often controlled by the institutionalization of knowledge, norms and historical and cultural ordering of life-worlds. This ordering of power is more often unequal and mostly unjust. Such unjust power-relationships get expressed through discrimination, deficit of dignity, exploitation, alienation and eventual dehumanization. So it is moral responsibility to humanize, deconstruct, decentralize and democratize power in all its forms and expressions.
Power can be an immense source of positive energy to create, to seek, to bridge, to build and to sustain. As a positive energy, power operates in an eternal cyclical interplay of “Shirsti” (creation) “Sthithi (sustenance) and Samhara. (destruction). And politics is everywhere- from bed room, to bath room, from class room to board room- in our taste-bud and language.- within our body and beyond. And human creativity and life involves the ability to learn and deal with power- in its million manifestations.
Towards Transformative Democratization
I am a proponent of the politics of transformative democratization: more of a political praxis that I have learned over a period time- through theorizing practice and practice that emerge out of a theory of change and world.
My politics is driven by a universal ethics- moral choices and value premises - informed by human dignity, equality, justice, responsibility to each other and the planet. It is informed and inspired by movements and struggles for economic, social, gender and ecological justice. My politics derives its moral legitimacy from various struggles and efforts to humanize the world- all through history- through care and love; through our creative and committed searches for making the world and planet a better place to live. My politics is about imaginative potential of human beings to influence and transform the world within them, around them and beyond- in constant search for freedom and justice. Democratization is at the core of it. Democratization can only happen when there is spaces for dissent as well dignity: spaces to protest as well to propose; spaces to imagine as well as innovate. Creativity, Community and Communication (through language and technology) are three aspect that make human different from animals. And democratization is a process to affirm and constantly rediscover the potential and possibilities of human creativity, community solidarity and communicative actions.
I tend to think that social and political transformation happen through a whole range of cumulative process for radical shifts as well reformist advocacy: through knowledge, language, technology, and institutions. Hence influencing of such cumulative process for reformation as well as radical shifts is key for transformative humanism and democracy.
Critiquing the institutionalized forms of power is the first step towards transforming the dynamics of power. Institutionalized and dominant forms of power tend to self-preserve through benign or malignant modes of tyranny and terror; coercion and consensus; and “common’ sense as well culture. If not constantly critiqued and challenged, all forms of institutionalized power can be oppressive, subjugating and dehumanizing. Hence, critiquing and transforming institutionalized power is an effort to resist dehumanization and relentlessly trying to humanize and democratize power.
This requires a combination of the politics of people, politics of knowledge, and politics of communication to challenge the dominating forms of power: whether it is the power of the state or power of the market or power of mafia.
My mission is to constantly work towards the humanization and democratization of structures and institutions of power through contestation, collaboration and cooperative action and communicative action - based on value of justice, freedom and equality of human persons. Such an approach seeks to bridge between the Ideal and Real. It may involve working in, working with and working beyond the institutionalized forms of power, without compromising the values of transformation.
I believe that every human action and institution needs to be historicized, problematised, politicized and democratized. Critical transformative approach involves consistent and constant critique of power and a commitment to challenge unjust power-relationship so as to humanize and democratize people, society, knowledge and institutions. Critical transformist approach to politics involves working within institution and working beyond institutions; such an approach involves resisting, engaging and persuading power-relationships to ensure justice as fairness and human dignity as the right to live in freedom.
There is a tendency of those in controlling the nodal locations of power to monopolize power- through claims of sovereignty. This monopolization of power to control natural, productive and reproductive resources, through ‘discipline” and promises of “security”, are at the root of unjust politics both in its micro and macro expressions.
So politics for me involves challenging and changing monopolization of power, and injustice that is inherent in such unequal and unjust power relationship. Politics for me challenging and changing unjust power-relationships to ensure a life of dignity, choices and freedom to all human beings. Politics for me is all about humanizing life-worlds as well quest for justice- towards sustainable, just and democratic society, governance and futures.
Politics for me is the democratization of power, knowledge, technology and language. Politics for me is the celebration of human dignity- through asserting and demanding human rights. Politics for me is to make change happen towards a just, sustainable, responsible world- without poverty and war. Politics for me is to fight injustice, exclusion, marginalization and dehumanization.
Politics for me is to take responsibility to imagine and suggest alternatives to unjust power-relationships. Politics for me is to imagine a utopia- a world without poverty and injustice where every person can live a life of dignity, freedom, enjoyment and responsibility. Politics for me is to listen to the voice of the last person. Politics for me is when every person can celebrate her/his dignity and right to dissent and development. Politics for me is to make market work for the people- not the other way around. Politics for is to accountability from all power-holders , State, Market and civil society. Politics for me is all about sovereignty of people- citizens- and the democratization of at levels of human action and institutions.
Politics for me is the courage of conviction to ensure sustainability of our planet, people, and eternal dreams for a joyful and justful world
Friday, October 9, 2009
Accountability Matters!
John Samuel
Accountability denotes the rights, responsibilities and duties that exist between people and various institutions that affect their lives. Accountability and legitimacy are two sides of the same coin. Lack of accountability will result in lack of political legitimacy. Lack of legitimacy will result in democratic deficit and the consequent abuse of power by decision makers and power-holders.
Democratic Accountability is both political and ethical. Accountability also denotes legal, social, economic and managerial aspects. Accountability is about answerability and enforceability. Answerability means the right to get information and clear response from any institutions or authority and the obligation of such institutions to provide information and response to such stake-holders. Enforceability denotes the capacity to ensure that a redressal is done or action is taken to correct a wrong action, wrong policy. Empowerment of people in terms of information, knowledge and mobilization is a prerequisite to demand any form of effective accountability.
From the perspective of democratic governance, people and citizens are the owners and the shapers of the State. The sovereignty of the Sate is derived from the sovereignty of the citizenship. Hence, all institutions of the state and governments are duty bound to be accountable to citizens. However, power is no longer the monopoly of the state or governments. Increasingly big transnational corporations, media, various public and private institutions, political parties, civil society formations and NGOs wield power and control resources and take actions and decision that affect the lives, choices and livelihood of people. Hence there has to be broader understanding, politics and ethics of accountability.
The big players in the markets like transnational corporations, big financial operators, including the banks and big media corporation increasingly tend to shape the boundaries of the state and lives and choices of the people. These unaccountable and powerful actors can become the biggest threat to Just and Democratic Governance in their quest for profit, unbridled free market, and accumulation of wealth and information.
Hence the notion of public accountability should ensure accountability of the state, governments and its institutions, corporate accountability, media accountability, accountability of the political parties and that of NGOs. All institutions and organisations that operate in the public sphere and market place need to be necessarily accountable to people, citizens and all stake holders.
One of the preconditions for Accountability is the Right to Information and political space and institutional mechanism to seek effective accountability from the various governmental, corporate, public and non-governmental institutions. Transparency, Accountability and legitimacy are interdependent conditions for any just and democratic form of governance. The exercise of any form of power or authority requires provisions for accountability to ensure that power or authority is not abused or used for self-interest of the few powerful. In many ways Autonomy and accountability are very much linked. More the autonomy, more the need for accountability.
It has been rightly pointed out by Held- Mathias that: “ Accountability refers to the fact that decision makers do not enjoy unlimited authority or autonomy but have to justify their action vis-a-visa affected parties or stake holders. These stake holders must be able to evaluate the actions of decision makers and to sanction them if their performance is poor or even removing from their positions of authority”
There are many innovative forms of seeking Accountability. The process of budget tracking, social audit, citizens’ tribunals, public hearings, people’s commission, and the monitoring of institutions of governance and public policies by citizens grouped proved to be effective means towards strengthening accountability.
There are multiple approaches to accountability. A typology of Accountability( adapting and strenthening the IDS versions) will help us to develop clear approaches and strategies to seek accountability in various arenas of power.
Political accountability
i) Consists of Checks and balances within the state including over delegated individuals in public offices responsible for carrying out specific tasks on behalf of people or citizens.
ii) The state provides an account of its actions, and consults citizens and stake holders prior to taking action in order to enforce rights and responsibilities.
iii) Mechanisms of political accountability can be both horizontal and vertical. The state can have its own horizontal mechanisms like, such as ombudsman, parliamentary audit committee, autonomous office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Citizens and Civil Society uses elections, court cases, public interest litigation or political mobilizations.
iv) Legal provisions and effective mechanism for Right to Information as well as information disclosure.
v) Regular and predictable space for citizen’s and people’s participating in the formulation and monitoring of budget.
vi) A new accountability framework for the Political Parties (as they hold enormous power in a democratic polity) to disclose their sources of income, expenditure and provisions to regulate corporate donations for political parties.
Social Accountability:
i) Focuses on people’s actions or civil society initiatives to hold state and its institutions of government to account for using social mobilization, people-centred advocacy, investigative reports, media advocacy, public hearings, social audits, reports card, and citizens’ tribunals.
ii) Addresses such issues such as human rights violations, security of people, judicial autonomy, and access to justice, electoral frauds and corruptions at various levels.
iii) Seeks to expand social and political spaces to seek accountability from Corporate Houses, Media and other powerful actors.
iv) Demands accountability from powerful financial institutions, including all International Financial Institutions such as World Bank, to be accountable, transparent and responsive to the communities where their projects are implemented and to people at large.
v) Seeks to strengthen the accountability mechanism and transparency measures of civil society organisations, NGOs and all such institutions in the public space.
Ethical Accountability
i) Stresses accountability to a certain systems of values within democratic principles as well as values of Justice, equity and Freedom. Ethical accountability has both personal and institutional dimension and scope beyond the conventional territories of the nation-state.
ii) This also means Powerful countries are not only accountable to the people or ‘demos’ of their respective country. They are also accountable to the people of countries affected by the actions of such governments. In this way, the United States should be ethically and socially accountable to the people of Iraq, and Afghanistan who are at the receiving end of military aggressions and conflicts perpetuated for the sake of maintaining the global military hegemony.
iii) It also focuses on seeking accountability of Business Corporation who seeks to monopolize agriculture and food products and those who are in the business of making various kinds of medicine and drugs and research in biotechnology or patenting of life forms. This has deep moral implications beyond one country or people. Hence ethical limits to market monopoly and efforts to regulate such corporations and make them accountable to this and coming generations can be a part of ethical accountability.
iv) Inter-generational accountability in terms of environment and climate change. This includes personal accountability to values of sustainable consumptions, less carbon emissions and accountability to peoples and generations who will be affected by our own individual and societal action, consumptions and behaviors.
v) Includes ethical accountability in terms of attitude, behavior and language to ensure dignity and respect for women, ethnic, religious or racial minorities and resisting all forms of discrimination based on gender, race, language, cast or ethnicity.
Managerial Accountability;
i) Focuses on financial accounting and reporting, system accountability within state institutions, judged according to agreed performance criteria
ii) Regular Auditing , appraisals and systems to ensure internal management integrity and effective and efficient use of financial and management resources
iii) New forms of accountability such as environmental and social audits
iv) Disclosure of the sources of income, expenditure and management principle in a predictable and systematic manner. Managerial accountabilities are often upward accountability. However, increasingly notions of horizontal accountability and downward accountability are recognized.
As accountability is a function of power relations, it is important to identify and expand the spaces and processes of power in each context. This requires legal provisions, constitutional guarantees, social mobilization, information and knowledge as well as the innovative use of media, technology, internet as well as social and policy research. As the power in the international arena and global space are increasing appropriated by the big transnational corporations, operators in the international finance market, and International Finance Institutions (IFI), there is a real challenge to seek accountability and transparency from these organisations.
Weighed voting at the World Bank and IMF means greater control and power by few rich countries in the global north. Though the World Bank and IMF claim that they are accountable to their stake holders and they are relatively better transparent in terms of information disclosure and they have Inspectional Panel and Evaluation agencies, these organisations are far from being democratically accountable and often they become the handmaiden of the rich countries and the business interest of the rich and powerful corporations.
The role of International and National NGOs and Civil Society organisations have increased significantly both in terms of resources, network, knowledge, discourse as well as the power of influencing. These institutions and organisations function in the public sphere and most of them work on behalf of the poor and marginalized people. Hence they are public institutions and depend largely on the financial support from people or from the tax payer’s money through bilateral funding. Hence, there is an urgent need for NGOs and all Civil Society Organisation to ensure effective, transparent and accountable management. Public accountability will be a prerequisite for the moral and political legitimacy of NGOs. Without moral and political legitimacy, NGOs will have less credibility or power to influence the policy and decision makers to be accountable, just or democratic.
A vibrant and accountable political party system is very crucial for sustaining the democratic system of governance. There is indeed a link between the health and maturity of the political party systems and the state of governance in a given country. One of the key challenges for democratic accountability is the marketisation of political parties and media.
Political parties have been increasingly reduced to electoral network or instrumental mechanism to capture the State power. Politics itself has been reduced to a media exercise played by powerful nexus of political elites and media elites, often negotiated or controlled by the corporate interests of the marker forces. In many parts of the world political party system is becoming increasingly made redundant by an unholy alliance of political-corporate- media elites. This is also because of the fact that political parties and elections are more and more shaped by the corporate donations and kick backs by vested interest groups and business corporations. As a result political parties are less based on ideological or moral conviction and more by competing interests among the market elites. The crisis in political parties and its leadership signifies a crisis to the very ideal of democracy and democratization.
Hence, there is indeed a need to work towards a new ethical and political accountability framework for political party leaders and political party institutions. When political parties themselves become business enterprises in the electoral market, the very moral fiber of democratic accountability is in peril.
It is important to revitalize and reinvent the political party System with courage of conviction and deep commitment to democratic accountability. That is why we need a broader movement to rediscover a new politics and ethics of accountability in the public sphere as well as private sphere.
Accountability denotes the rights, responsibilities and duties that exist between people and various institutions that affect their lives. Accountability and legitimacy are two sides of the same coin. Lack of accountability will result in lack of political legitimacy. Lack of legitimacy will result in democratic deficit and the consequent abuse of power by decision makers and power-holders.
Democratic Accountability is both political and ethical. Accountability also denotes legal, social, economic and managerial aspects. Accountability is about answerability and enforceability. Answerability means the right to get information and clear response from any institutions or authority and the obligation of such institutions to provide information and response to such stake-holders. Enforceability denotes the capacity to ensure that a redressal is done or action is taken to correct a wrong action, wrong policy. Empowerment of people in terms of information, knowledge and mobilization is a prerequisite to demand any form of effective accountability.
From the perspective of democratic governance, people and citizens are the owners and the shapers of the State. The sovereignty of the Sate is derived from the sovereignty of the citizenship. Hence, all institutions of the state and governments are duty bound to be accountable to citizens. However, power is no longer the monopoly of the state or governments. Increasingly big transnational corporations, media, various public and private institutions, political parties, civil society formations and NGOs wield power and control resources and take actions and decision that affect the lives, choices and livelihood of people. Hence there has to be broader understanding, politics and ethics of accountability.
The big players in the markets like transnational corporations, big financial operators, including the banks and big media corporation increasingly tend to shape the boundaries of the state and lives and choices of the people. These unaccountable and powerful actors can become the biggest threat to Just and Democratic Governance in their quest for profit, unbridled free market, and accumulation of wealth and information.
Hence the notion of public accountability should ensure accountability of the state, governments and its institutions, corporate accountability, media accountability, accountability of the political parties and that of NGOs. All institutions and organisations that operate in the public sphere and market place need to be necessarily accountable to people, citizens and all stake holders.
One of the preconditions for Accountability is the Right to Information and political space and institutional mechanism to seek effective accountability from the various governmental, corporate, public and non-governmental institutions. Transparency, Accountability and legitimacy are interdependent conditions for any just and democratic form of governance. The exercise of any form of power or authority requires provisions for accountability to ensure that power or authority is not abused or used for self-interest of the few powerful. In many ways Autonomy and accountability are very much linked. More the autonomy, more the need for accountability.
It has been rightly pointed out by Held- Mathias that: “ Accountability refers to the fact that decision makers do not enjoy unlimited authority or autonomy but have to justify their action vis-a-visa affected parties or stake holders. These stake holders must be able to evaluate the actions of decision makers and to sanction them if their performance is poor or even removing from their positions of authority”
There are many innovative forms of seeking Accountability. The process of budget tracking, social audit, citizens’ tribunals, public hearings, people’s commission, and the monitoring of institutions of governance and public policies by citizens grouped proved to be effective means towards strengthening accountability.
There are multiple approaches to accountability. A typology of Accountability( adapting and strenthening the IDS versions) will help us to develop clear approaches and strategies to seek accountability in various arenas of power.
Political accountability
i) Consists of Checks and balances within the state including over delegated individuals in public offices responsible for carrying out specific tasks on behalf of people or citizens.
ii) The state provides an account of its actions, and consults citizens and stake holders prior to taking action in order to enforce rights and responsibilities.
iii) Mechanisms of political accountability can be both horizontal and vertical. The state can have its own horizontal mechanisms like, such as ombudsman, parliamentary audit committee, autonomous office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Citizens and Civil Society uses elections, court cases, public interest litigation or political mobilizations.
iv) Legal provisions and effective mechanism for Right to Information as well as information disclosure.
v) Regular and predictable space for citizen’s and people’s participating in the formulation and monitoring of budget.
vi) A new accountability framework for the Political Parties (as they hold enormous power in a democratic polity) to disclose their sources of income, expenditure and provisions to regulate corporate donations for political parties.
Social Accountability:
i) Focuses on people’s actions or civil society initiatives to hold state and its institutions of government to account for using social mobilization, people-centred advocacy, investigative reports, media advocacy, public hearings, social audits, reports card, and citizens’ tribunals.
ii) Addresses such issues such as human rights violations, security of people, judicial autonomy, and access to justice, electoral frauds and corruptions at various levels.
iii) Seeks to expand social and political spaces to seek accountability from Corporate Houses, Media and other powerful actors.
iv) Demands accountability from powerful financial institutions, including all International Financial Institutions such as World Bank, to be accountable, transparent and responsive to the communities where their projects are implemented and to people at large.
v) Seeks to strengthen the accountability mechanism and transparency measures of civil society organisations, NGOs and all such institutions in the public space.
Ethical Accountability
i) Stresses accountability to a certain systems of values within democratic principles as well as values of Justice, equity and Freedom. Ethical accountability has both personal and institutional dimension and scope beyond the conventional territories of the nation-state.
ii) This also means Powerful countries are not only accountable to the people or ‘demos’ of their respective country. They are also accountable to the people of countries affected by the actions of such governments. In this way, the United States should be ethically and socially accountable to the people of Iraq, and Afghanistan who are at the receiving end of military aggressions and conflicts perpetuated for the sake of maintaining the global military hegemony.
iii) It also focuses on seeking accountability of Business Corporation who seeks to monopolize agriculture and food products and those who are in the business of making various kinds of medicine and drugs and research in biotechnology or patenting of life forms. This has deep moral implications beyond one country or people. Hence ethical limits to market monopoly and efforts to regulate such corporations and make them accountable to this and coming generations can be a part of ethical accountability.
iv) Inter-generational accountability in terms of environment and climate change. This includes personal accountability to values of sustainable consumptions, less carbon emissions and accountability to peoples and generations who will be affected by our own individual and societal action, consumptions and behaviors.
v) Includes ethical accountability in terms of attitude, behavior and language to ensure dignity and respect for women, ethnic, religious or racial minorities and resisting all forms of discrimination based on gender, race, language, cast or ethnicity.
Managerial Accountability;
i) Focuses on financial accounting and reporting, system accountability within state institutions, judged according to agreed performance criteria
ii) Regular Auditing , appraisals and systems to ensure internal management integrity and effective and efficient use of financial and management resources
iii) New forms of accountability such as environmental and social audits
iv) Disclosure of the sources of income, expenditure and management principle in a predictable and systematic manner. Managerial accountabilities are often upward accountability. However, increasingly notions of horizontal accountability and downward accountability are recognized.
As accountability is a function of power relations, it is important to identify and expand the spaces and processes of power in each context. This requires legal provisions, constitutional guarantees, social mobilization, information and knowledge as well as the innovative use of media, technology, internet as well as social and policy research. As the power in the international arena and global space are increasing appropriated by the big transnational corporations, operators in the international finance market, and International Finance Institutions (IFI), there is a real challenge to seek accountability and transparency from these organisations.
Weighed voting at the World Bank and IMF means greater control and power by few rich countries in the global north. Though the World Bank and IMF claim that they are accountable to their stake holders and they are relatively better transparent in terms of information disclosure and they have Inspectional Panel and Evaluation agencies, these organisations are far from being democratically accountable and often they become the handmaiden of the rich countries and the business interest of the rich and powerful corporations.
The role of International and National NGOs and Civil Society organisations have increased significantly both in terms of resources, network, knowledge, discourse as well as the power of influencing. These institutions and organisations function in the public sphere and most of them work on behalf of the poor and marginalized people. Hence they are public institutions and depend largely on the financial support from people or from the tax payer’s money through bilateral funding. Hence, there is an urgent need for NGOs and all Civil Society Organisation to ensure effective, transparent and accountable management. Public accountability will be a prerequisite for the moral and political legitimacy of NGOs. Without moral and political legitimacy, NGOs will have less credibility or power to influence the policy and decision makers to be accountable, just or democratic.
A vibrant and accountable political party system is very crucial for sustaining the democratic system of governance. There is indeed a link between the health and maturity of the political party systems and the state of governance in a given country. One of the key challenges for democratic accountability is the marketisation of political parties and media.
Political parties have been increasingly reduced to electoral network or instrumental mechanism to capture the State power. Politics itself has been reduced to a media exercise played by powerful nexus of political elites and media elites, often negotiated or controlled by the corporate interests of the marker forces. In many parts of the world political party system is becoming increasingly made redundant by an unholy alliance of political-corporate- media elites. This is also because of the fact that political parties and elections are more and more shaped by the corporate donations and kick backs by vested interest groups and business corporations. As a result political parties are less based on ideological or moral conviction and more by competing interests among the market elites. The crisis in political parties and its leadership signifies a crisis to the very ideal of democracy and democratization.
Hence, there is indeed a need to work towards a new ethical and political accountability framework for political party leaders and political party institutions. When political parties themselves become business enterprises in the electoral market, the very moral fiber of democratic accountability is in peril.
It is important to revitalize and reinvent the political party System with courage of conviction and deep commitment to democratic accountability. That is why we need a broader movement to rediscover a new politics and ethics of accountability in the public sphere as well as private sphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)