John Samuel
One has to make a distinction between the policy narrative and political discourse that emerge from the potential civil nuclear deal between Indian and the USA. While the nuanced policy narrative is more about the potential energy security and a new legitimation of India by the rich and powerful actors of this rather unilateral world, political discourse will be more about "sovereignty' of India as a country.
Politics is more about perceptions and less about the nuanced policy analysis or its implications. Electoral politics in India is less shaped by the promises about potential long term policy gains, but more about the political discourses and compulsions of today. The political perceptions are often shaped by strategic media spin, powerful images, signs, symbols and pre-emptive rhetoric.
While the policy wonks of the UPA and the foreign policy experts who push for the nuclear deal are much more focused on the policy gains in the international arena and potential energy security in the log run, the Left and BJP are in the process of shaping the political rhetoric and discourse around the "autonomy' and "sovereignty of India as a nation of a billion people.
From the perspective of Electoral positioning, UPA is making a strategic mistake – about the timing and positioning of the Nuclear Deal as a primary electoral issue. Whether Congress party wants it or not, this will end up as a key election issue. The balance sheet of UPA in the last four years got enough achievements to go to the elections with political positioning as a government that is politically committed to the aam admi. The recent food and oil price and the consequent inflation may pose some challenges. However, the UPA and Congress party did not even manage to sell their gains among the people across India. UPA has introduced some of the most progressive legislations and policy initiatives in the recent times: National Rural Employment Guarantee, Right to Information, more investment for Education, a law against Domestic Violence, a law to protect the rights of Forest dwellers over their land and clear steps to support farmers and agriculture. Instead of developing a whole political discourse and electoral strategy that would help to increase the "legitimation" of the UPA with the voting aam admi, Manmohan Sing seems to have taken Nuclear Deal as the last assertion before he vacates the space. It is as if the Nuclear Deal has become a prestige issue for the PM and few foreign policy wonks in the Ministry of External Affairs. While this new assertion of the Prime Minster and few others in the government will give a good grading in the “International Community” and the foreign press from the US and Europe, it may not bring electoral dividends in the forthcoming election. In fact, it may neutralize the potential electoral gains that could have been made of the relatively progressive pro-poor policies of the government. A hug from George Bush may not form the best poster for the next election.
The issue of Nuclear Deal may be perceived different by the ‘shining India" segment and the "Bharat" of the majority of Indians. The problem is that "shining India" brigade of the upward mobile class will read and discuss the English newspaper and indulge in "patriotic" discussions in cocktail parties. But this class hardly goes to cast their votes and can easily shift their allegiances to anyone who is in power. These parasites of power do not care much about the colure of the incumbent ant in the south block. As long as their "shining" interests are taken care of, they are less bothered about a communal riot "here or there" or few suicides of farmers "once in a while". This shining Indian class gets carried away by a "praising piece" in the Newsweek or the Time. The more educated among would feel really great if the Economist says a few good words about the country. Those who are in power in Delhi often get carried away by this ever visible, ever enthusiastic urban upward mobile class of India and their press. When Pramad Mahajan and his company in the NDA government got carried away by the pat of the Shining India, they faced the music in the ballot box.
The largely self-serving shining India class is generally pro-anything that gives them better money, better opportunities, better image and also the "patriotic" shining elsewhere. They are proud of their high flying kids working in the investment banks or the IT sector in Silicon Valley or Transnational Corporations in the richer part of the world. They feel very happy when the few privileged in London, New York or Washington say that India is an emerging “super’ power. They get carried away by the flat world of Thomas Friedman or the list of the Indian billionaires in the Forbes Magazine. They are happy that Bush patted Manmohan Sing in Hokkaido. They also get impressed by the photo opportunities of our PM with G8 leaders, a BBC report on how the Nuclear Deal will help India to get in to the club of nuclear nations and give access to best of nuclear technology to solve our energy deficiency. Shining India class is impatient to make India look smart, powerful and something like an imitation of Europe.
But it is important for UPA to remember that this very same class was more pro-BJP in the last election and the shining India class did not bring Congress to power 2004. The Congress Party went after the "aam admi' and got a better endorsement and the road to power in the last election.
Some people may say that electoral politics in India is often shaped by the cast/community vote banks, local issues and few nationally relevant political positioning. There are often very broad political discourse and positioning that shape the choice of the crucial number of fence sitting voters in India. In fact often it is the five to seven percent shift of relatively more informed voters that make the big difference in the electoral arithmetic. And this five to seven percent voters are often shaped by the macro-discourse- whether it is Ram-Janmahoomi, Babri masjid, Shining India or Aam admi. This seven percent of shifting voters will increasingly play a more important role in the Indian politics. But this seven percent of voters do not include the "shining India”. They may be from the upper end of the "Bharat"- relatively educated, news reading/watching lower and middle-middle class of India -spread in and around small towns and villages across India. These voting classes, unlike the Shining India class, tend to get persuaded by political discourse and rhetoric rather than the nuanced policy implications of the Nuclear Deal.
.
However the upper end of the Bharat may think that Bush is more of a bully and America is not a country to be trusted. India's internal sense of izzat is more important and they would rather take it seriously if they feel that our "sovereignty" is mortgaged in to the powerful camp, through the Nuclear Deal. They are not bothered about IAEA Board of Governors or a lead story in the Time magazine. This class also may feel that the track record of all those countries that got in to the US Camp is less inspiring. Wherever the US got space, they made a political mess- in Pakistan, in Philippines, and in the Middle East. Today most of the people in Pakistan are anti-Musharaf because he is seen as the man of the US. So there is a general mistrust and apathy towards the US (across the developing world) particularly after the imposed war on Iraq and the nightmare it created in Iraq and across the world. So it will be a political mistake if Manmohan Sing and UPA are perceived as the lackey of the US, though UPA may claim that they want nuclear deal in the large interest of the country.
The interesting thing is that both the Right and the Left in India will make use of more political and patriotic rhetoric of "sovereignty", without bothering to get in to a nuanced policy debate or implications of the Nuclear Deal. Anyone who understands electoral politics will know that the nuanced policy discussions and editorial pieces in the English News Papers will only impress the Shining India class of around three percent of the people of India and the voting Bharat get impressed more by the political discourse and rhetoric.
The left will try and play a bit of double game here. They may claim the ownership of all pro-poor aam admi policies of the UPA, and blame congress for everything else, including for mortgaging the "sovereignty" of India to the imperialist Bush. Though the Left may claim the primary agency for all the progressive legislations and policies, the real credit for such policies legitimately belong to the government and UPA. The Left will try to give a rather self-righteous patriotic, pro-poor political spin, making strategic use of the nuclear deal. They also know that a large section of the Bharat and Muslims may be more impressed by their anti-Bush and anti-US positioning. They are least bothered about the Shining India or their English Newspapers. But this positioning of the Left will eventually made in to a double spin by the BJP and its allies to reap a better benefits in the electoral market place. This is because of the fact the track record of the Left governments in Kerala and West Bengal may neutralize their advantage over political discourse. Because, the local issues and quality of governance in West Bengal and Kerala may overwhelm the patriotic and pro-poor political positioning in the next election. So at the end of the day, the Left will end with less number of seats in the Parliament and BJP and their allies will laugh their way to Parliament.
There can indeed be debates about the real policy impact of the civil nuclear deal with the US. While the shining India may applaud it as the “arrival of India”- with the endorsement of the western powers, the large number of Bharat voters may not see the merits of policy gains in the long run. As John Maynard Keynes once said, in the long run everyone is dead and gone. Politics and electoral politics are about the issues of today and not necessarily about the potential foreign policy impact after ten yeas.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
G8 Hokkaido: An Exercise in Escapism
John Samuel
The meeting of G8 leaders in Hokkaido, Japan, proved to be an exercise in escapism. The final communique of the G8 leaders is more of a recycled rhetoric of broken promises. This meeting, held in the midst of financial, fuel, food and climate crisis, failed to recognize the gravity of the crisis. The G8 leaders’ posturing of confidence will not help to solve these issues. This would further increase the legitimacy crisis of G8 as a credible forum to develop any viable solution for the ongoing problems of hunger and injustice- partly perpetuated by the corporate and institutional interests of G8 countries.
The original grouping of rich industrialized nations – G7- emerged in the context of the oil crisis of the 1970s. Now after almost thirty years, G8- that includes the co-opted Russia- face the challenge of being responsible to address the looming crisis of finance, fuel and food. The balance sheet of G8 in the last thirty years clearly shows that G8 as an institutionalized venue failed to provide any meaningful solution to the issues of poverty, war, inequities and injustice that confront the world. While they have managed to impose the neoliberal policy paradigm- with the strategic use of World Bank and IMF conditionality- on the developing world and poor nations of the world, they have not been able to do anything substantial to address trade inequities, aid diversion and debt trap. In fact, G8 leaders, instead of solving these issues, often used the Summits to push forward the interest of the rich countries, with lots of window dressing and rhetoric about poverty reduction, and more aid for the poor countries. In 2005, they have promised to write off the debt and double the aid to Africa to address issues of poverty, disease and sustainable development. After three years, these leaders stand exposed in the grave yard of broken promises.
Though a new grouping of G 5 countries, including India, China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico-are being co-opted in to the periphery of the G8 Summits, the G5 Countries too failed to influence the agenda or outcome of the G8 process. So it is high time for the G5 countries to ponder the very validity of being in the periphery of the G8 Summit- legitimizing the agenda setting role of the rich and powerful countries. Instead of playing the second fiddle to the rich American- European axis and a co-opted Japan, it is high time for G5 to explore the option of reviving G 20 process as an alternate option to discuss and to adopt collective measures to address the issues that confront humanity and the world. This requires a fresh set of imagination and political will from the part of the G5 leaders.
The Hokkaido summit is happening in the midst of international policy and political crisis. Though G8 leaders claim that it is the grouping of the democratic and developed nations of the world, the irony of G8 summit is that it is one of the most undemocratic of the global process. The leaders neither discuss the key issues in their parliament nor involve citizens or civil society in deciding the agenda for the meeting. The public rating of many leaders, including George Bush and Fukuda, is at the lowest. The fact that G8 summits are held in the far away luxury resorts, fearing citizens and peoples’ action show that they are insulted from the people and process of democratic culture. This year an estimated US$ 250 million was spent by Japan for security alone. The leaders addressed the press through video conferencing facilities rather than facing the journalists Why should the “leaders of the world” be afraid of people on whose behalf they are supposed to take decisions? Such a situation seems to indicate their lack of democratic credentials and legitimacy to represent the peoples of their countries or to take decision on their behalf. Authority without accountability and transparency is essentially anti-democratic in its very content and form. So G8 Summit itself failed to meet any standards of democratic process or accountable governance.
Only three short years after G8 pledged to ‘make poverty history” at Gleneagles in 2005, the spiraling food and fuel prices is making poverty in historically large proportions. The G8 has done nothing to stop it. The ranks of the hungry have swelled in to 950 million this year and it is estimated that another 750 million are now at the risk of falling in to chronic hunger. As many as 1.7 billion people, or one of every four persons in the world, may now lack basic food security. In fact the so-called food crisis is a symptom of a deeper crisis of finance capital and speculative commodity market. Over a period of the last twenty years, most of the marginal farmers and small agricultural producers are slow poisoned through systematic withdrawal of support systems and subsidies, as a part of the neo-liberal structural adjustment Programmes imposed on the developing world and poor countries by the G8 force and WB /IMF as their extension services. The climate crisis was used as an opportunity to subsidies the rich farmers through Biofuel subsidies. The rising food price is driven partly due to new appetite for biofuel power to fuel their cars. The corn needed to fill up a car tank with ethanol could feed a hungry person for one year. This in effect make Biofuel the new poison that can undermine the food security of million of people and steal their food and lives. It is imperative to stop all subsidies for Biofuel, primarily by the US. It is also important to declare a moratorium on the diversion of agricultural land for biofuel monocropping. However, it is appalling to see the evasive tactic of G8 leaders on the issue of biolfuel perpetuating food insecurity and crisis.
Though there has been lots of discussion about climate change, G8 leaders simply failed to walk their talk. The G8 countries’ failure to reduce green house gas emissions is already wreaking havoc on agriculture through severe floods, droughts and rising temperatures. The carbon dioxide emissions from G8 countries make up to 40 percent of the world’s total emission. And yet only 13% of the world population lives in G8 countries. Not only are G8 countries responsible for large scale pollution, they are also failing to compensate poor countries that are bearing the brunt of the G8 Countries’ dirty emission. Though G8 countries have promised that that will reduce emission by half by 2050, it is too far and less of a commitment to meet the challenge of climate crisis. So the promise of 2050 is more of an act of escapist stalling tactic, rather than real commitment to act up on the climate crisis. While the environmental and economic viability of nuclear power generation is increasingly questioned in their own countries, it seems G8 is once again pedaling nuclear power generation as a response to climate crisis. When we locate this in the context of the proposed civil nuclear deal with India and the US, it is clear that many of the G8 countries seem to be more keen to market their old nuclear reactors to emerging markets such as India.
Hence, the Hokkaido G8 summit is more regressive step. The final communique thoroughly exposed the lack of policy or political imagination of the G8 leaders. The communique also signified their lack of political will and the deficit of moral and political legitimacy to act as the leaders of the world. So the pertinent question is whether G8 is a part of the problem or part of the solution. The Hokkaido Summit seems to suggest that G8 is more keen to remain as a part of the problem. The world requires more accountable, imaginative and multilateral process to address the issues of injustice, poverty and environmental crisis. The answer should lie more in reforming the multilateral United Nations Process, rather than quasi global governance posturing of the G8 leaders.
The meeting of G8 leaders in Hokkaido, Japan, proved to be an exercise in escapism. The final communique of the G8 leaders is more of a recycled rhetoric of broken promises. This meeting, held in the midst of financial, fuel, food and climate crisis, failed to recognize the gravity of the crisis. The G8 leaders’ posturing of confidence will not help to solve these issues. This would further increase the legitimacy crisis of G8 as a credible forum to develop any viable solution for the ongoing problems of hunger and injustice- partly perpetuated by the corporate and institutional interests of G8 countries.
The original grouping of rich industrialized nations – G7- emerged in the context of the oil crisis of the 1970s. Now after almost thirty years, G8- that includes the co-opted Russia- face the challenge of being responsible to address the looming crisis of finance, fuel and food. The balance sheet of G8 in the last thirty years clearly shows that G8 as an institutionalized venue failed to provide any meaningful solution to the issues of poverty, war, inequities and injustice that confront the world. While they have managed to impose the neoliberal policy paradigm- with the strategic use of World Bank and IMF conditionality- on the developing world and poor nations of the world, they have not been able to do anything substantial to address trade inequities, aid diversion and debt trap. In fact, G8 leaders, instead of solving these issues, often used the Summits to push forward the interest of the rich countries, with lots of window dressing and rhetoric about poverty reduction, and more aid for the poor countries. In 2005, they have promised to write off the debt and double the aid to Africa to address issues of poverty, disease and sustainable development. After three years, these leaders stand exposed in the grave yard of broken promises.
Though a new grouping of G 5 countries, including India, China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico-are being co-opted in to the periphery of the G8 Summits, the G5 Countries too failed to influence the agenda or outcome of the G8 process. So it is high time for the G5 countries to ponder the very validity of being in the periphery of the G8 Summit- legitimizing the agenda setting role of the rich and powerful countries. Instead of playing the second fiddle to the rich American- European axis and a co-opted Japan, it is high time for G5 to explore the option of reviving G 20 process as an alternate option to discuss and to adopt collective measures to address the issues that confront humanity and the world. This requires a fresh set of imagination and political will from the part of the G5 leaders.
The Hokkaido summit is happening in the midst of international policy and political crisis. Though G8 leaders claim that it is the grouping of the democratic and developed nations of the world, the irony of G8 summit is that it is one of the most undemocratic of the global process. The leaders neither discuss the key issues in their parliament nor involve citizens or civil society in deciding the agenda for the meeting. The public rating of many leaders, including George Bush and Fukuda, is at the lowest. The fact that G8 summits are held in the far away luxury resorts, fearing citizens and peoples’ action show that they are insulted from the people and process of democratic culture. This year an estimated US$ 250 million was spent by Japan for security alone. The leaders addressed the press through video conferencing facilities rather than facing the journalists Why should the “leaders of the world” be afraid of people on whose behalf they are supposed to take decisions? Such a situation seems to indicate their lack of democratic credentials and legitimacy to represent the peoples of their countries or to take decision on their behalf. Authority without accountability and transparency is essentially anti-democratic in its very content and form. So G8 Summit itself failed to meet any standards of democratic process or accountable governance.
Only three short years after G8 pledged to ‘make poverty history” at Gleneagles in 2005, the spiraling food and fuel prices is making poverty in historically large proportions. The G8 has done nothing to stop it. The ranks of the hungry have swelled in to 950 million this year and it is estimated that another 750 million are now at the risk of falling in to chronic hunger. As many as 1.7 billion people, or one of every four persons in the world, may now lack basic food security. In fact the so-called food crisis is a symptom of a deeper crisis of finance capital and speculative commodity market. Over a period of the last twenty years, most of the marginal farmers and small agricultural producers are slow poisoned through systematic withdrawal of support systems and subsidies, as a part of the neo-liberal structural adjustment Programmes imposed on the developing world and poor countries by the G8 force and WB /IMF as their extension services. The climate crisis was used as an opportunity to subsidies the rich farmers through Biofuel subsidies. The rising food price is driven partly due to new appetite for biofuel power to fuel their cars. The corn needed to fill up a car tank with ethanol could feed a hungry person for one year. This in effect make Biofuel the new poison that can undermine the food security of million of people and steal their food and lives. It is imperative to stop all subsidies for Biofuel, primarily by the US. It is also important to declare a moratorium on the diversion of agricultural land for biofuel monocropping. However, it is appalling to see the evasive tactic of G8 leaders on the issue of biolfuel perpetuating food insecurity and crisis.
Though there has been lots of discussion about climate change, G8 leaders simply failed to walk their talk. The G8 countries’ failure to reduce green house gas emissions is already wreaking havoc on agriculture through severe floods, droughts and rising temperatures. The carbon dioxide emissions from G8 countries make up to 40 percent of the world’s total emission. And yet only 13% of the world population lives in G8 countries. Not only are G8 countries responsible for large scale pollution, they are also failing to compensate poor countries that are bearing the brunt of the G8 Countries’ dirty emission. Though G8 countries have promised that that will reduce emission by half by 2050, it is too far and less of a commitment to meet the challenge of climate crisis. So the promise of 2050 is more of an act of escapist stalling tactic, rather than real commitment to act up on the climate crisis. While the environmental and economic viability of nuclear power generation is increasingly questioned in their own countries, it seems G8 is once again pedaling nuclear power generation as a response to climate crisis. When we locate this in the context of the proposed civil nuclear deal with India and the US, it is clear that many of the G8 countries seem to be more keen to market their old nuclear reactors to emerging markets such as India.
Hence, the Hokkaido G8 summit is more regressive step. The final communique thoroughly exposed the lack of policy or political imagination of the G8 leaders. The communique also signified their lack of political will and the deficit of moral and political legitimacy to act as the leaders of the world. So the pertinent question is whether G8 is a part of the problem or part of the solution. The Hokkaido Summit seems to suggest that G8 is more keen to remain as a part of the problem. The world requires more accountable, imaginative and multilateral process to address the issues of injustice, poverty and environmental crisis. The answer should lie more in reforming the multilateral United Nations Process, rather than quasi global governance posturing of the G8 leaders.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Slippery Roads to the Future:
Oil Price and the changing times
John Samuel
Oil is back in the centre of Economic and Political Discourse- at the international, national and local level. What does this mean for the future of Economy and geo-politics?
The roots of this phase of economic globalization are in the economics and politics of the 1970s. The protagonist was oil. There was a food crisis too. This perpetuated the new cycle of debt and many highly indebted poor countries. The economic turmoil of the seventies (due to oil shock, saturation of state-and consequent inefficient and ineffective public expenditure, food crisis, and consequent new indebtedness of poor and developing countries) paved the way for the new mix of neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and the third way. The indebtedness and Balance of Payment crisis in many countries gave unprecedented power to IMF and World Bank- and the consequent Economic and Policy Conditionalities. That is how the story of the new phase of Economic Globalization commenced somewhere in the early eighties.
While there are similarities between the Oil Shock, Food Crisis and economic conditions of the seventies, and the one we are beginning to face now, the political and economic context are not the same. The first twenty five years after the Second World War saw unprecedented and sustained economic growth in Europe and America. In fact, the demand created by the reconstruction after the war, the aid system in the fifties, and the capabilities in Europe without the burden of maintaining the colonies helped to a significant extend to propel this economic growth. In other words, there was a significant demand within the western countries and the internal market competence to deliver the supplies. By the seventies, the market got saturated- in terms of demands- and the state got saturated- in terms of the sustainability of public sector spending and effective social welfare. As a result, there was a real compulsion to find new market elsewhere and to restructure the tax and public expenditure pattern. The rise of Japan and the competitive edge of Japanese products in the Asia, oil rich Gulf countries and US also created a sense of urgency to create new markets. To a certain extend EU was a sort of political solution to enable market integration so as to address the issue of market saturation.
The Oil shock, and the consequent debt trap and balance of Payment crisis gave a great opportunity for OECD countries to develop a combined strategy of trade, aid, debt and the conditionality approach to open up the markets of developing countries and less developed countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa. The economic and political implosion of the USSR in the late eighties also created a crisis of the centralized policy planning mode and a non-dollar based trade framework (there was almost a barter system between USSR and many other countries). In fact, more than the ideological threat of communism, the West was more worried about the trade( in Oil and other commodities and arms) and such a system posed a global road block for the western capitalist mode of trade. After the fall of USSR, it was a free ride for the finance capitalism and neo-liberal mode of policy and trade framework.
The present situation is very different. The growth of the last fifteen years is propelled by the growth of Asian economies, Latin America and parts of Africa. For the first time, the population of China and India also tend to become an economic asset (instead of liability) in terms of productive capability and domestic market expansion. Such a growth is partly due to the new infrastructure development in different parts of Asia (in fact much bigger in scale than the one in Europe in the sixties) and also due to competitive edge in terms of cheap labour and skills. The finance capital market too played a key role in propelling new investments in the stock market that propelled the economy. Asian countries are beginning to play a competitive game and also using the very finance capital market to acquire market share, productive capacities and big MNCs. Many of the take over (of Tata, Mittal and others) is of immense symbolic importance.
Due to job flights and due to the crisis of the social -development, there is a fast emerging vulnerable middle class and poor across Europe and USA. There is an added shade of identity politics (dramatically different from the old Communist "threat"). The migrant communities which provided the crucial labor inputs during the growth period of Europe now have become a political liability. This means there is more political and economic insecurity among a large number of working class vulnerable middle class and poor. All European countries are facing a new internal crisis of politics and economics (particularly in the context of the alienation of Muslim communities who are born and brought up in Europe).
This means there is a shift in the political sociology at the grassroots level in the USA and EU and other parts of Western Europe. Many of the European countries like Italy, Spain and France are facing serious economic crisis. This also means that there can be shift in the macro-political economy and geo-politics. Hence, the context is dramatically different from that of the economic crisis of the seventies. Now there is no crisis of Balance of Payment (as of now) and there is lots of Foreign Exchange Reserve. There are vibrant domestic markets in India and China. In fact the growth is sustained by the economic growth in Asia.
It seems the ongoing economic troubles, oil price hike, and food crisis will be the spring board for another key political and economic shift in the world. The price of oil climbed from $ 10 for a barrel in 1999 to $ 135 last week. Goldman Sachs says it will hit $ 200 within the next 24 months! This means the price of Oil has risen by 900 percent in the last one decade. Oil spending as a share of global economy may cross 7 %( more than the peak in 1979). Oil drives the engine of the present global economy. USA consumes 25% of the world output. Though demand in China and India increased, China consumes 9% and India consumes only 3% of the total oil demands.
As the price of oil climbs, the commodity prices will go up. This also means the food prices will be relatively higher in the International market. The oil price increase is making new political tension and turmoil. But if the price goes up, at least in some segments, there will be a decrease in demands. The SUV market in the US and elsewhere has already in a slump and will face a crisis. This will also have consequences in countries like China and India- which sustain the global economic growth (and demand for commodities) to a large extend. It will be difficult to sustain the subsidy levels for Oil in India and the governments will be forced to increase the price (there is no other way). A mix of inflation, increasing oil price and deceleration of economy (for e.g. in Real Estate) can create new political tensions and equations in many countries, including India.
The increasing oil prices will further make the Oil producing countries very cash rich. So the prominence of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries will significant increase. This also may induce a new arms race- lead by Russia. On the one hand it will give rise to a multi-polar world and on the other hand it can propel a war. It is also interesting to note that most of the Oil producing countries are run by autocratic or authoritarian regimes; many of them are in the Arab World
The role of National Sovereign Funds of Gulf countries will increase dramatically. It is estimated that if the Oil price climbs up- 6 gulf countries will have a value of $95 trillion dollars (American Economy is around $ 13 trillion) - about twice the size of public equity market. Already Sovereign Wealth Funds of the Gulf countries are buying up the major and controlling stakes of big western banks and this will create new protectionism.
A possible inflation (if it crosses 15%) in Asia can create a serious economic troubles. There will be a devaluation of currencies in these countries- with a potential trouble for finance capital market. There is a real trend of Inflation in most of the countries in Asia (Vietnam-highest. Thailand (almost 10%), India, China and others) and the oil price hike will further accentuate the problem. A persistent inflation and a stagnant economic growth may result a Stagflation in different parts of Asia, including India.
This all means a) this phase of economic globalization will not be sustainable and it will be transit in the next phase b) there will be new protectionism( particularly in terms of commodity market, food etc) c) There will be more regional trade and regional economic activism.
So there will be a possible tendency to regulate the finance flow and there will be more restriction for the commodity market. The elections and politics of Europe and USA will be forced to address the issue of vulnerable middle class and poor. Look at the election promises in the USA- the jobs. Health system and social security are top on the agenda. There will be political pressure to increase the allocation at the social sector and for creating new jobs-and reduction of the foreign aid (this is what happened in Japan from 99 onwards)
The next US President will be forced to initiate new protectionism and new social-welfare measure. This will have an impact on the global trade. The oil price hike may affect the travel as well as trade (due to higher freight charges).
All these do not mean a "reversal of globalization". This means a new phase of globalization- along with a new protectionism in many countries. There will be a scope for a New Deal and a new kind of Social democratic politics in Europe and elsewhere.
The World is at the threshold of a new phase. The present economic slow-down is likely to be persistent for another four years. It will influence the shape of economy, political dynamics and geo-politics in the years to come.
John Samuel
Oil is back in the centre of Economic and Political Discourse- at the international, national and local level. What does this mean for the future of Economy and geo-politics?
The roots of this phase of economic globalization are in the economics and politics of the 1970s. The protagonist was oil. There was a food crisis too. This perpetuated the new cycle of debt and many highly indebted poor countries. The economic turmoil of the seventies (due to oil shock, saturation of state-and consequent inefficient and ineffective public expenditure, food crisis, and consequent new indebtedness of poor and developing countries) paved the way for the new mix of neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and the third way. The indebtedness and Balance of Payment crisis in many countries gave unprecedented power to IMF and World Bank- and the consequent Economic and Policy Conditionalities. That is how the story of the new phase of Economic Globalization commenced somewhere in the early eighties.
While there are similarities between the Oil Shock, Food Crisis and economic conditions of the seventies, and the one we are beginning to face now, the political and economic context are not the same. The first twenty five years after the Second World War saw unprecedented and sustained economic growth in Europe and America. In fact, the demand created by the reconstruction after the war, the aid system in the fifties, and the capabilities in Europe without the burden of maintaining the colonies helped to a significant extend to propel this economic growth. In other words, there was a significant demand within the western countries and the internal market competence to deliver the supplies. By the seventies, the market got saturated- in terms of demands- and the state got saturated- in terms of the sustainability of public sector spending and effective social welfare. As a result, there was a real compulsion to find new market elsewhere and to restructure the tax and public expenditure pattern. The rise of Japan and the competitive edge of Japanese products in the Asia, oil rich Gulf countries and US also created a sense of urgency to create new markets. To a certain extend EU was a sort of political solution to enable market integration so as to address the issue of market saturation.
The Oil shock, and the consequent debt trap and balance of Payment crisis gave a great opportunity for OECD countries to develop a combined strategy of trade, aid, debt and the conditionality approach to open up the markets of developing countries and less developed countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa. The economic and political implosion of the USSR in the late eighties also created a crisis of the centralized policy planning mode and a non-dollar based trade framework (there was almost a barter system between USSR and many other countries). In fact, more than the ideological threat of communism, the West was more worried about the trade( in Oil and other commodities and arms) and such a system posed a global road block for the western capitalist mode of trade. After the fall of USSR, it was a free ride for the finance capitalism and neo-liberal mode of policy and trade framework.
The present situation is very different. The growth of the last fifteen years is propelled by the growth of Asian economies, Latin America and parts of Africa. For the first time, the population of China and India also tend to become an economic asset (instead of liability) in terms of productive capability and domestic market expansion. Such a growth is partly due to the new infrastructure development in different parts of Asia (in fact much bigger in scale than the one in Europe in the sixties) and also due to competitive edge in terms of cheap labour and skills. The finance capital market too played a key role in propelling new investments in the stock market that propelled the economy. Asian countries are beginning to play a competitive game and also using the very finance capital market to acquire market share, productive capacities and big MNCs. Many of the take over (of Tata, Mittal and others) is of immense symbolic importance.
Due to job flights and due to the crisis of the social -development, there is a fast emerging vulnerable middle class and poor across Europe and USA. There is an added shade of identity politics (dramatically different from the old Communist "threat"). The migrant communities which provided the crucial labor inputs during the growth period of Europe now have become a political liability. This means there is more political and economic insecurity among a large number of working class vulnerable middle class and poor. All European countries are facing a new internal crisis of politics and economics (particularly in the context of the alienation of Muslim communities who are born and brought up in Europe).
This means there is a shift in the political sociology at the grassroots level in the USA and EU and other parts of Western Europe. Many of the European countries like Italy, Spain and France are facing serious economic crisis. This also means that there can be shift in the macro-political economy and geo-politics. Hence, the context is dramatically different from that of the economic crisis of the seventies. Now there is no crisis of Balance of Payment (as of now) and there is lots of Foreign Exchange Reserve. There are vibrant domestic markets in India and China. In fact the growth is sustained by the economic growth in Asia.
It seems the ongoing economic troubles, oil price hike, and food crisis will be the spring board for another key political and economic shift in the world. The price of oil climbed from $ 10 for a barrel in 1999 to $ 135 last week. Goldman Sachs says it will hit $ 200 within the next 24 months! This means the price of Oil has risen by 900 percent in the last one decade. Oil spending as a share of global economy may cross 7 %( more than the peak in 1979). Oil drives the engine of the present global economy. USA consumes 25% of the world output. Though demand in China and India increased, China consumes 9% and India consumes only 3% of the total oil demands.
As the price of oil climbs, the commodity prices will go up. This also means the food prices will be relatively higher in the International market. The oil price increase is making new political tension and turmoil. But if the price goes up, at least in some segments, there will be a decrease in demands. The SUV market in the US and elsewhere has already in a slump and will face a crisis. This will also have consequences in countries like China and India- which sustain the global economic growth (and demand for commodities) to a large extend. It will be difficult to sustain the subsidy levels for Oil in India and the governments will be forced to increase the price (there is no other way). A mix of inflation, increasing oil price and deceleration of economy (for e.g. in Real Estate) can create new political tensions and equations in many countries, including India.
The increasing oil prices will further make the Oil producing countries very cash rich. So the prominence of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries will significant increase. This also may induce a new arms race- lead by Russia. On the one hand it will give rise to a multi-polar world and on the other hand it can propel a war. It is also interesting to note that most of the Oil producing countries are run by autocratic or authoritarian regimes; many of them are in the Arab World
The role of National Sovereign Funds of Gulf countries will increase dramatically. It is estimated that if the Oil price climbs up- 6 gulf countries will have a value of $95 trillion dollars (American Economy is around $ 13 trillion) - about twice the size of public equity market. Already Sovereign Wealth Funds of the Gulf countries are buying up the major and controlling stakes of big western banks and this will create new protectionism.
A possible inflation (if it crosses 15%) in Asia can create a serious economic troubles. There will be a devaluation of currencies in these countries- with a potential trouble for finance capital market. There is a real trend of Inflation in most of the countries in Asia (Vietnam-highest. Thailand (almost 10%), India, China and others) and the oil price hike will further accentuate the problem. A persistent inflation and a stagnant economic growth may result a Stagflation in different parts of Asia, including India.
This all means a) this phase of economic globalization will not be sustainable and it will be transit in the next phase b) there will be new protectionism( particularly in terms of commodity market, food etc) c) There will be more regional trade and regional economic activism.
So there will be a possible tendency to regulate the finance flow and there will be more restriction for the commodity market. The elections and politics of Europe and USA will be forced to address the issue of vulnerable middle class and poor. Look at the election promises in the USA- the jobs. Health system and social security are top on the agenda. There will be political pressure to increase the allocation at the social sector and for creating new jobs-and reduction of the foreign aid (this is what happened in Japan from 99 onwards)
The next US President will be forced to initiate new protectionism and new social-welfare measure. This will have an impact on the global trade. The oil price hike may affect the travel as well as trade (due to higher freight charges).
All these do not mean a "reversal of globalization". This means a new phase of globalization- along with a new protectionism in many countries. There will be a scope for a New Deal and a new kind of Social democratic politics in Europe and elsewhere.
The World is at the threshold of a new phase. The present economic slow-down is likely to be persistent for another four years. It will influence the shape of economy, political dynamics and geo-politics in the years to come.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Economics of Violence: Growth with Inequality
The World Bank claims that poverty in Asia has been halved between 1990 and 2003. But, says John Samuel, the story looks good only until you see the underbelly of this economic growth – growing inequality, violence and pollution
Here’s the good news. The economy of Asia is surging ahead. Sustained economic growth seems to have contributed to the reduction of poverty. The World Bank says that poverty rates in Asia as a whole (based on consumption levels of less than $1 per day) have been almost halved in the last decade, falling from 34.3% in 1990 to 19.3% in 2003. Most countries are making steady progress towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam have all witnessed more than a 50% poverty reduction since 1990 and these countries are supposed to be on track to meet the MDG targets of a further 50% reduction in income poverty by 2015. Literacy rates are going up, infant and maternal mortality is falling, and people are living longer. Asian cities are booming, with signs of prosperity everywhere. More and more billionaires are laughing their way to the banks year after year. The pundits say that the time of Asia has come -- it is an Asian Century, with China as the global factory, India as the global office, and the stock exchanges rocking. The story looks good!
The story looks good till you notice the underbelly of economic growth: unprecedented levels of inequality, violence, epidemics, congested roads, teeming slums, polluted rivers and failing democracies. The story looks good till you begin to hear the stories of dalits, tribals, ethnic minorities, women from the hinterlands of rural deprivation. Stories that you may never read in the newspaper, unheard stories of invisible people, people displaced from land and livelihoods, people who prefer to commit suicide rather than sell their dignity, children who go to bed hungry every single day. Two-thirds of the world’s poor live in Asia. There will still be more than a billion people living on less than $ 2 a day in 2015. So is Asia shining? Is economic growth good for billionaires or billons of people?
What is the balance sheet of Asia’s economic growth? Whose growth is it anyway? Who grows and who loses? Can economic growth alone eliminate poverty in Asia? What are the key challenges for development, democracy and human rights in Asia? We need to situate the story of economic growth in the well-being, human security and human rights of the most marginalised and excluded people in Asia. In spite of all the growth, if there are still more than one billion people living on less than $2 a day in 2015, the story can turn sour! But it seems the ruling elite and media barons cannot stomach the bad news.
Economic growth with inequality creates an economics of deprivation and violence. The present model of economic growth displaces millions of rural and urban poor from their land and livelihoods. As a result of unprecedented displacement due to mining, infrastructure projects and corporate farming, a new generation of social-economic refugees and new poor are emerging across Asia. They are growing in urban slums, rural areas and in highly concentrated pockets of extreme poverty. A new discontent is brewing and it can adversely affect development, democracy and human rights in Asia.
While economic growth helps to create more opportunities for the more educated section of the middle class and a ‘trickle-down’ effect on a section of the poor, it is creating unprecedented levels of inequality within countries and between countries.
Though China and India, two of the most populous countries in the world, are witnessing high rates of economic growth, there are regions lagging behind in both countries that have poor infrastructure or public service provisions. The urban and rural poor also face discrimination based on ethnicity, race, religion, caste, gender and place of origin. Women are more marginalised and vulnerable to a system that perpetuates inequality, discrimination and consequent poverty.
Economic growth is concentrated in a few urban centres and specially created economically dynamic zones in the costal areas of many countries. But two-thirds of the population in most populous countries -- like China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan -- still live in rural areas depending on agriculture for their livelihood. Historically marginalised sections like the dalits in India, ethnic minorities in China and South-East Asia and religious minorities in many countries are alienated from economic growth and the mainstream political process.
This urban-centric, uneven and jobless economic growth perpetuates a sort of systemic inequality based on identity, gender and location all over Asia. Most communities at the receiving end of exclusion are historically marginalised in terms of economic or political opportunities. When inequality has a direct co-relation with identity, it gives rise to new discontents. Such a sense of discontent and shared sense of alienation can often give rise to a new politics of violence -- reacting to the prosperity of the dominant communities.
Surrounding these islands of prosperity is a growing sea of poverty, discontent and consequent reactionary politics. This can perpetuate a cycle of violence, erasing the benefits of growth as well as poverty reduction. So the paradoxical trend of growth with inequality may not be able to sustain growth on a long-term basis. Political stability is a prerequisite for economic growth. Inequality can create more political instability, adversely affecting sustainable economic growth. This can eventually perpetuate a new cycle of poverty, violence and violation of human rights in Asia.
The present economic growth is vulnerable as it is largely dependent on the service sector and the export-oriented manufacturing sector, often at the cost of the agricultural sector that provides livelihoods to the poor and marginalised sections in Asia.
This urban-centric growth, with very little investment in rural infrastructure, economy or agricultural, also leads to an unprecedented migration from rural areas to urban areas. This explosion of populations in urban centres without adequate infrastructure and gainful employment opportunities can create a new generation of urban poor. Urban poverty and inequality -- with direct links to identity -- can create more violence against women and escalating crime rates in many countries.
Thus the present mode of neo-liberal economic growth is not sustainable in the long run as the billions at the receiving end of marginalisation and poverty can spoil the party, giving rise to a new cycle of poverty in Asia.
InfoChange News & Features, April 2008
Here’s the good news. The economy of Asia is surging ahead. Sustained economic growth seems to have contributed to the reduction of poverty. The World Bank says that poverty rates in Asia as a whole (based on consumption levels of less than $1 per day) have been almost halved in the last decade, falling from 34.3% in 1990 to 19.3% in 2003. Most countries are making steady progress towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam have all witnessed more than a 50% poverty reduction since 1990 and these countries are supposed to be on track to meet the MDG targets of a further 50% reduction in income poverty by 2015. Literacy rates are going up, infant and maternal mortality is falling, and people are living longer. Asian cities are booming, with signs of prosperity everywhere. More and more billionaires are laughing their way to the banks year after year. The pundits say that the time of Asia has come -- it is an Asian Century, with China as the global factory, India as the global office, and the stock exchanges rocking. The story looks good!
The story looks good till you notice the underbelly of economic growth: unprecedented levels of inequality, violence, epidemics, congested roads, teeming slums, polluted rivers and failing democracies. The story looks good till you begin to hear the stories of dalits, tribals, ethnic minorities, women from the hinterlands of rural deprivation. Stories that you may never read in the newspaper, unheard stories of invisible people, people displaced from land and livelihoods, people who prefer to commit suicide rather than sell their dignity, children who go to bed hungry every single day. Two-thirds of the world’s poor live in Asia. There will still be more than a billion people living on less than $ 2 a day in 2015. So is Asia shining? Is economic growth good for billionaires or billons of people?
What is the balance sheet of Asia’s economic growth? Whose growth is it anyway? Who grows and who loses? Can economic growth alone eliminate poverty in Asia? What are the key challenges for development, democracy and human rights in Asia? We need to situate the story of economic growth in the well-being, human security and human rights of the most marginalised and excluded people in Asia. In spite of all the growth, if there are still more than one billion people living on less than $2 a day in 2015, the story can turn sour! But it seems the ruling elite and media barons cannot stomach the bad news.
Economic growth with inequality creates an economics of deprivation and violence. The present model of economic growth displaces millions of rural and urban poor from their land and livelihoods. As a result of unprecedented displacement due to mining, infrastructure projects and corporate farming, a new generation of social-economic refugees and new poor are emerging across Asia. They are growing in urban slums, rural areas and in highly concentrated pockets of extreme poverty. A new discontent is brewing and it can adversely affect development, democracy and human rights in Asia.
While economic growth helps to create more opportunities for the more educated section of the middle class and a ‘trickle-down’ effect on a section of the poor, it is creating unprecedented levels of inequality within countries and between countries.
Though China and India, two of the most populous countries in the world, are witnessing high rates of economic growth, there are regions lagging behind in both countries that have poor infrastructure or public service provisions. The urban and rural poor also face discrimination based on ethnicity, race, religion, caste, gender and place of origin. Women are more marginalised and vulnerable to a system that perpetuates inequality, discrimination and consequent poverty.
Economic growth is concentrated in a few urban centres and specially created economically dynamic zones in the costal areas of many countries. But two-thirds of the population in most populous countries -- like China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan -- still live in rural areas depending on agriculture for their livelihood. Historically marginalised sections like the dalits in India, ethnic minorities in China and South-East Asia and religious minorities in many countries are alienated from economic growth and the mainstream political process.
This urban-centric, uneven and jobless economic growth perpetuates a sort of systemic inequality based on identity, gender and location all over Asia. Most communities at the receiving end of exclusion are historically marginalised in terms of economic or political opportunities. When inequality has a direct co-relation with identity, it gives rise to new discontents. Such a sense of discontent and shared sense of alienation can often give rise to a new politics of violence -- reacting to the prosperity of the dominant communities.
Surrounding these islands of prosperity is a growing sea of poverty, discontent and consequent reactionary politics. This can perpetuate a cycle of violence, erasing the benefits of growth as well as poverty reduction. So the paradoxical trend of growth with inequality may not be able to sustain growth on a long-term basis. Political stability is a prerequisite for economic growth. Inequality can create more political instability, adversely affecting sustainable economic growth. This can eventually perpetuate a new cycle of poverty, violence and violation of human rights in Asia.
The present economic growth is vulnerable as it is largely dependent on the service sector and the export-oriented manufacturing sector, often at the cost of the agricultural sector that provides livelihoods to the poor and marginalised sections in Asia.
This urban-centric growth, with very little investment in rural infrastructure, economy or agricultural, also leads to an unprecedented migration from rural areas to urban areas. This explosion of populations in urban centres without adequate infrastructure and gainful employment opportunities can create a new generation of urban poor. Urban poverty and inequality -- with direct links to identity -- can create more violence against women and escalating crime rates in many countries.
Thus the present mode of neo-liberal economic growth is not sustainable in the long run as the billions at the receiving end of marginalisation and poverty can spoil the party, giving rise to a new cycle of poverty in Asia.
InfoChange News & Features, April 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Another Nigeria is Possible!
John Samuel
Nigeria is one the richest poor countries in Africa. It got one of the biggest reserves of oil and minerals in the world. But the richest natural resources are surrounded by the poorest of the people. While few rich in Abuja or in London make merry with the oil resources of Nigeria, the people who live in the midst of oil fields often go to bed hungry. This is the story in many African countries, with rich natural resources. In fact, instead of creating human development and econmic growth, rich natural resources seem to cause more conflicts. Such conflicts help the big companies to siphon off the resources in the midst of near anarchy and governments controlled by a power clique, without any accountability to the citizens.
But Nigeria does not have to be like this. Nigeria has a very vibrant society of around 150 million people, with a sense of history, cultural and national identity. It has all the potential to become a stable democratic and economic power, with substantial influence in the world
One of the reasons for poverty in Nigeria and most Africa is the extractive economic relationships between these countries and the big multinational corporations based in countries of the North. The latest economic actors on scene are the Chinese Companies in search of natural resources, business opportunities, with offers of strategic economic relationship and generous aid. There has not been a concerted effort to transform the economic potential of Nigeria by building a vibrant industrial sector. Nigeria used most of the economic resources out of the oil to pay off its huge debt to Northern countries and financial banks. Africa, more than any part of the world, is still at the receiving end of new forms of colonialism and imperialism, perpetuated by a mix of trade, aid, debt, military presence and subversion of democracy. Conflicts are partly the outcome of the process of colonialism and decolonialisation. Conflicts also help to perpetuate the business of small arms industry, largely based in the Northern countries. Conflicts not only kill so many innocent people, but it also drains off valuable economic and natural resources, perpetuating poverty in many parts of Africa. The situation gets further accentuated by the lack of democratic and accountable governance, subversion of governance and governments hijacked by political elites, often with the support of big economic and corporate interest groups.
God seems to be in plenty in Nigeria. Coca Cola too is around. Pepsi is not far behind. There may not be enough water or food. Teachers may not be in the school. Chiefs must be busy with their “royal paraphernalia”. The new world churches or spiritual shops, with all imaginable names from the Bible, promising prosperity are everywhere in Lagos and Abuja. Huge bill boards advertising prosperity gospel, get thousands of people in search of fortune, healings, and security. It seems that religion is a source of “security” for millions of people who are vulnerable to poverty, disease and violence in their real lives- the “opiate of the masses, the sigh of the oppressed’. In spite of everyone going to Church or Mosque or for prosperity gospel, most of the Nigerians are still poor. Most of the politically privileged ones tend to “cleanse” their corruptions by paying a part of their booty to those who mobilize in the name of God in the churches or mosques.
Abuja, the capital city of Nigeria, too is an irony. It looks like a brand new city out of no where. The broad and smooth roads, the impressive buildings and swanky cars on the streets do not have much to do with the reality of the vast majority of the poor people of Nigeria. Abuja signifies the tight rope political balance in a rather relatively bigger country like Nigeria, with religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity. Lagos, the biggest city, situated in the south, used to be capital of Nigeria. But the political power of Nigeria is relatively stronger and more organized in predominantly Muslim stronghold of the North. Abuja was developed as a city on a rather empty patch of land in the centre of Nigeria. Though the shifting of the Capital was decided way back in 1977, it is only in the early 1990s the capital was shifted to the newly constructed and relatively well planned city of Abuja. Abuja boasts of an impressive national Mosque and an equally impressive National Church. There are well planned office complexes, big bungalows, stadiums etc.
Abuja is in many ways symbolic of Nigeria. Though it looks like a relatively brand new city, with better planning, the City does not have any space for the poor or marginalized. The shining face of Nigeria cease to shine once you stay there for couple of days- constant power cuts, water shortage and lack of regular maintenance, in spite of billions of dollars of investment, signify the lack of accountable governance and the wide spread corruption that impedes the growth and the potential of a vibrant country.
The cost of living in Abuja is prohibitive enough for poor people to stay away from the city. All the hawkers, workers in the informal sector, and small scale traders all were driven out of the city. It seems that the Nigerian political and business elites do not want poor and marginalized people to disturb the image of the city. Most of the taxi drivers and those who are in the low paid jobs spend few hours every day commuting to and fro from Abuja , as they can not afford to have a house in Abuja. Nigeria is controlled by a cartel of political, economic and military elites who control the government, highly lucrative oil industry and big business. Abuja is their city. And it can only accommodate government employees with quarters and elite sections of the city.
If one is looking for culture, communities, poetry and vibrancy of African culture, Abuja is not the place to go. So I decided to go and spend time with real people and real communities in the Kaduna state. I had an opportunity to visit the “palace” of the Chief of the Bajja Community. The “palace” was his house with few rooms and a big hall (sort of big middle class house in a compound). This “royal meeting” with the “Paramount Ruler” of Bajja Community was once in a life time experience- there was something comic about it- the ceremony – the mock seriousness and drama involved in the whole show. I realized that the “His Royal Highness” is actually a book seller and he studied the “old” seventh class (supposed to be of high quality). He was so popular , dignified and “well read” ( as he used to sit in the book shop). So he was elevated to a Chief.
In Nigeria and many other African countries, democracy is a sort of modern system of governance drafted up on the traditional society and power structure, shaped by tribal identity and traditional chieftains and localized loyalties. Though there is a semblance of middle class in the cities, most of the villages are at the receiving end of poverty, without livelihood, sustainable agriculture or social development. The British ruled by co-opting the tribal chieftains by paying an allowance to them. Even now the practice continues. Most of the local Chieftains are paid by the government for their upkeep and maintenance of their “palaces”. The networks of government often work through the Chiefs at the grass roots level. Some of the Chiefs are well educated and they bring together people to address the local issues of development.
Though Nigeria got one of the most vibrant civil societies, social movements and NGOs in Africa, the politics of Nigeria has been turbulent. Since its independence from the British colonial masters in the 1960, Nigeria was more or less ruled by a privileged cartel of Military rulers or their chosen representatives. Most of the ruling elites of Nigeria come from the predominantly Muslim Hausa population in the Northern part. The present President Umar Yar’adua- brother of a former General Yar’adua, too is from the North- he was formerly the Governor of Katsina state. Though the last President Obasanjo was a Christian from the South, he too was nominated by the relatively influential northern lobby. Governance involves a tight balancing of power between the major tribes Hausa in the North, Yoruba in the South and Ibus in the South-east. In spite of occasional violence in some parts of Northern Nigeria, there is a conscious effort to respect the religious diversity and pluralism of Nigeria. This ensured relative stability, social development and economic growth in Nigeria.
The political parties are often stage managed by the “power cartel” consisting of Military generals, political leaders and powerful business man. Nigeria is one of the biggest producers of oil. But the irony is that Nigeria still imports petrol and diesel. This is because of the fact that most of the crude oil are exported and refined elsewhere and then imported for the local consumption. Most of the oil fields are managed by multinational companies like Shell. Nigerian rulers did not bother to build refineries to process the crude oil. Though there are few refineries, most of the oil is exported. It has been alleged that it was because of the fact that some of the most powerful political actors got a stake in the refineries outside the country and favorable export conditions help them to make millions of dollars. As per the Transparency International, Nigeria is supposed to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world. But the news papers are still full of stories of corruption.
Nigeria has all the potential to become one of the most developed countries in Africa. There is a vision to develop Nigeria in to one of the top 20 economies in the world.. Nigeria got a very active media, active citizens groups and civil society formations. There are a substantial number of highly educated and aware professionals with an entrepreneurial spirit. The country got some of the richest reserves of natural resources. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. But there is a need for a strong institutional basis for accountable, transparent and effective governance in the country. With more investments in human and social development as well as effective economic management, Nigeria has all it takes to overcome the causes and consequences of poverty as well as to thrive as socially and economically vibrant country in the world. The question is whether there is enough political will and social capability to make such a transformation possible. Many of the citizen activists and civil society leaders believe that “ Another Nigeria is Possible”.
Nigeria is one the richest poor countries in Africa. It got one of the biggest reserves of oil and minerals in the world. But the richest natural resources are surrounded by the poorest of the people. While few rich in Abuja or in London make merry with the oil resources of Nigeria, the people who live in the midst of oil fields often go to bed hungry. This is the story in many African countries, with rich natural resources. In fact, instead of creating human development and econmic growth, rich natural resources seem to cause more conflicts. Such conflicts help the big companies to siphon off the resources in the midst of near anarchy and governments controlled by a power clique, without any accountability to the citizens.
But Nigeria does not have to be like this. Nigeria has a very vibrant society of around 150 million people, with a sense of history, cultural and national identity. It has all the potential to become a stable democratic and economic power, with substantial influence in the world
One of the reasons for poverty in Nigeria and most Africa is the extractive economic relationships between these countries and the big multinational corporations based in countries of the North. The latest economic actors on scene are the Chinese Companies in search of natural resources, business opportunities, with offers of strategic economic relationship and generous aid. There has not been a concerted effort to transform the economic potential of Nigeria by building a vibrant industrial sector. Nigeria used most of the economic resources out of the oil to pay off its huge debt to Northern countries and financial banks. Africa, more than any part of the world, is still at the receiving end of new forms of colonialism and imperialism, perpetuated by a mix of trade, aid, debt, military presence and subversion of democracy. Conflicts are partly the outcome of the process of colonialism and decolonialisation. Conflicts also help to perpetuate the business of small arms industry, largely based in the Northern countries. Conflicts not only kill so many innocent people, but it also drains off valuable economic and natural resources, perpetuating poverty in many parts of Africa. The situation gets further accentuated by the lack of democratic and accountable governance, subversion of governance and governments hijacked by political elites, often with the support of big economic and corporate interest groups.
God seems to be in plenty in Nigeria. Coca Cola too is around. Pepsi is not far behind. There may not be enough water or food. Teachers may not be in the school. Chiefs must be busy with their “royal paraphernalia”. The new world churches or spiritual shops, with all imaginable names from the Bible, promising prosperity are everywhere in Lagos and Abuja. Huge bill boards advertising prosperity gospel, get thousands of people in search of fortune, healings, and security. It seems that religion is a source of “security” for millions of people who are vulnerable to poverty, disease and violence in their real lives- the “opiate of the masses, the sigh of the oppressed’. In spite of everyone going to Church or Mosque or for prosperity gospel, most of the Nigerians are still poor. Most of the politically privileged ones tend to “cleanse” their corruptions by paying a part of their booty to those who mobilize in the name of God in the churches or mosques.
Abuja, the capital city of Nigeria, too is an irony. It looks like a brand new city out of no where. The broad and smooth roads, the impressive buildings and swanky cars on the streets do not have much to do with the reality of the vast majority of the poor people of Nigeria. Abuja signifies the tight rope political balance in a rather relatively bigger country like Nigeria, with religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity. Lagos, the biggest city, situated in the south, used to be capital of Nigeria. But the political power of Nigeria is relatively stronger and more organized in predominantly Muslim stronghold of the North. Abuja was developed as a city on a rather empty patch of land in the centre of Nigeria. Though the shifting of the Capital was decided way back in 1977, it is only in the early 1990s the capital was shifted to the newly constructed and relatively well planned city of Abuja. Abuja boasts of an impressive national Mosque and an equally impressive National Church. There are well planned office complexes, big bungalows, stadiums etc.
Abuja is in many ways symbolic of Nigeria. Though it looks like a relatively brand new city, with better planning, the City does not have any space for the poor or marginalized. The shining face of Nigeria cease to shine once you stay there for couple of days- constant power cuts, water shortage and lack of regular maintenance, in spite of billions of dollars of investment, signify the lack of accountable governance and the wide spread corruption that impedes the growth and the potential of a vibrant country.
The cost of living in Abuja is prohibitive enough for poor people to stay away from the city. All the hawkers, workers in the informal sector, and small scale traders all were driven out of the city. It seems that the Nigerian political and business elites do not want poor and marginalized people to disturb the image of the city. Most of the taxi drivers and those who are in the low paid jobs spend few hours every day commuting to and fro from Abuja , as they can not afford to have a house in Abuja. Nigeria is controlled by a cartel of political, economic and military elites who control the government, highly lucrative oil industry and big business. Abuja is their city. And it can only accommodate government employees with quarters and elite sections of the city.
If one is looking for culture, communities, poetry and vibrancy of African culture, Abuja is not the place to go. So I decided to go and spend time with real people and real communities in the Kaduna state. I had an opportunity to visit the “palace” of the Chief of the Bajja Community. The “palace” was his house with few rooms and a big hall (sort of big middle class house in a compound). This “royal meeting” with the “Paramount Ruler” of Bajja Community was once in a life time experience- there was something comic about it- the ceremony – the mock seriousness and drama involved in the whole show. I realized that the “His Royal Highness” is actually a book seller and he studied the “old” seventh class (supposed to be of high quality). He was so popular , dignified and “well read” ( as he used to sit in the book shop). So he was elevated to a Chief.
In Nigeria and many other African countries, democracy is a sort of modern system of governance drafted up on the traditional society and power structure, shaped by tribal identity and traditional chieftains and localized loyalties. Though there is a semblance of middle class in the cities, most of the villages are at the receiving end of poverty, without livelihood, sustainable agriculture or social development. The British ruled by co-opting the tribal chieftains by paying an allowance to them. Even now the practice continues. Most of the local Chieftains are paid by the government for their upkeep and maintenance of their “palaces”. The networks of government often work through the Chiefs at the grass roots level. Some of the Chiefs are well educated and they bring together people to address the local issues of development.
Though Nigeria got one of the most vibrant civil societies, social movements and NGOs in Africa, the politics of Nigeria has been turbulent. Since its independence from the British colonial masters in the 1960, Nigeria was more or less ruled by a privileged cartel of Military rulers or their chosen representatives. Most of the ruling elites of Nigeria come from the predominantly Muslim Hausa population in the Northern part. The present President Umar Yar’adua- brother of a former General Yar’adua, too is from the North- he was formerly the Governor of Katsina state. Though the last President Obasanjo was a Christian from the South, he too was nominated by the relatively influential northern lobby. Governance involves a tight balancing of power between the major tribes Hausa in the North, Yoruba in the South and Ibus in the South-east. In spite of occasional violence in some parts of Northern Nigeria, there is a conscious effort to respect the religious diversity and pluralism of Nigeria. This ensured relative stability, social development and economic growth in Nigeria.
The political parties are often stage managed by the “power cartel” consisting of Military generals, political leaders and powerful business man. Nigeria is one of the biggest producers of oil. But the irony is that Nigeria still imports petrol and diesel. This is because of the fact that most of the crude oil are exported and refined elsewhere and then imported for the local consumption. Most of the oil fields are managed by multinational companies like Shell. Nigerian rulers did not bother to build refineries to process the crude oil. Though there are few refineries, most of the oil is exported. It has been alleged that it was because of the fact that some of the most powerful political actors got a stake in the refineries outside the country and favorable export conditions help them to make millions of dollars. As per the Transparency International, Nigeria is supposed to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world. But the news papers are still full of stories of corruption.
Nigeria has all the potential to become one of the most developed countries in Africa. There is a vision to develop Nigeria in to one of the top 20 economies in the world.. Nigeria got a very active media, active citizens groups and civil society formations. There are a substantial number of highly educated and aware professionals with an entrepreneurial spirit. The country got some of the richest reserves of natural resources. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. But there is a need for a strong institutional basis for accountable, transparent and effective governance in the country. With more investments in human and social development as well as effective economic management, Nigeria has all it takes to overcome the causes and consequences of poverty as well as to thrive as socially and economically vibrant country in the world. The question is whether there is enough political will and social capability to make such a transformation possible. Many of the citizen activists and civil society leaders believe that “ Another Nigeria is Possible”.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Revolution is no Laughter!
Revolution is no Laughter!
Revolution is no merry making.
Follow the grammar please.
Beware!
Brooms will be around...
Brooms like processions; not protests!
Brooms love only puritans!
No heretics please…
Don't laugh, dance or even smile!
Life is too serious a business.
Stand up with reverence for the "second coming".
Don't speak, don't smoke, don't hug, and don't laugh.
Such heresies are injurious to health.
There are no protest and poetry on barren lands
Every protest may need a license to play.
Every protest may be taxed or axed.
Every protest may be followed by brooms
Be as serious as in a funeral home!
Thus heresy begins...
Poetry is protest…
Protest is anger turned laughter,
Hate transformed in to a joyful hug...
Love bloomed in to resistance...
Resistance in eternal search for revolution within...
Revolution is another name for Love...
In a romantic nostalgia for Che Guevara...
On a trip through the Motor Cycle Diaries.
Such heresies are not permitted.
Trespassers will be prosecuted!
The Church knows how to deal with heretics
Inquisitions, lurking in the memory lanes
The clergy has prepared
For the “second coming”!
With liturgy of revolution
With hymns, chants and fragrance
Elevating rituals and memories of saints.
Che could be in the altar
Nowhere else!
In the Altar, revolution is hope
Eternally postponed.
To be remembered periodically
Like the Crucifixion and resurrection!
Heretics make laughter out of revolutions.
Hugs out of”struggles"
Smoke out the devils within...
Such heresy will be broomed out...
Cleansed off with firmness...
In Gods own Country!
Beware!
God’s own country
Needs more brooms
Less protest or Poetry
God’s own country is waiting
For a river cleansing!
( John Samuel.03.04.08.Dubai Airport)
Revolution is no merry making.
Follow the grammar please.
Beware!
Brooms will be around...
Brooms like processions; not protests!
Brooms love only puritans!
No heretics please…
Don't laugh, dance or even smile!
Life is too serious a business.
Stand up with reverence for the "second coming".
Don't speak, don't smoke, don't hug, and don't laugh.
Such heresies are injurious to health.
There are no protest and poetry on barren lands
Every protest may need a license to play.
Every protest may be taxed or axed.
Every protest may be followed by brooms
Be as serious as in a funeral home!
Thus heresy begins...
Poetry is protest…
Protest is anger turned laughter,
Hate transformed in to a joyful hug...
Love bloomed in to resistance...
Resistance in eternal search for revolution within...
Revolution is another name for Love...
In a romantic nostalgia for Che Guevara...
On a trip through the Motor Cycle Diaries.
Such heresies are not permitted.
Trespassers will be prosecuted!
The Church knows how to deal with heretics
Inquisitions, lurking in the memory lanes
The clergy has prepared
For the “second coming”!
With liturgy of revolution
With hymns, chants and fragrance
Elevating rituals and memories of saints.
Che could be in the altar
Nowhere else!
In the Altar, revolution is hope
Eternally postponed.
To be remembered periodically
Like the Crucifixion and resurrection!
Heretics make laughter out of revolutions.
Hugs out of”struggles"
Smoke out the devils within...
Such heresy will be broomed out...
Cleansed off with firmness...
In Gods own Country!
Beware!
God’s own country
Needs more brooms
Less protest or Poetry
God’s own country is waiting
For a river cleansing!
( John Samuel.03.04.08.Dubai Airport)
Friday, March 21, 2008
How India Lives: Impoverishment, Inequality and Identity
John Samuel
(This note is based on a recent paper by Arjun Sengupta, KP Kanana and Ravindran in the Economic and Political Weekly of India, on March 15, 2008)
Poverty is not merely about numbers. Poverty is the denial of right to live with dignity and perpetuated by an active process of impoverisation that emerge out of unequal and unjust power relationship.
The notion of impoverisation (or the process of the active creation of poverty with in society or economy) needs to be seen in the context of social, economic and political inequality. Such inequality is perpetuated by entrenched identities, emerging out of cumulative marginalization; poverty is no longer a humanitarian issue, but a deeply political issue. Such political economy of impoverisation, resulting in active denial of social and economic rights, may induce more violent conflicts and political unrest in a given society. Such conflicts may further pose problem for economic growth and social security.
A recent paper (Economic & Political Weekly, March 15, 2008 49 .India’s common people: Who are they, How Many are they and How Do they live? Arjun Sengupta, K P Kannan, G Raveendran) very clearly demonstrates the link between poverty, inequality and identity in the Indian context.
To give a sense about the broader arguments of the paper, I quote the key highlights from the paper :
“This paper attempts to define the common people of India in terms of levels of consumption and examines their socio-economic profile in different periods of time, since the early 1990s with a view to assessing how the economic growth process has impacted on their lives. The findings should worry everyone. Despite high growth, more than three-fourths of Indians are poor and vulnerable with a level of consumption not more than twice the official poverty line. This proportion of the population which can be categorised as the “common people” is much higher among certain social groups, especially for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. There is also evidence to suggest that inequality is widening between the common people and the better-off sections of society.”
The authors sum up their excellent analysis with the following findings:
“To sum up, an overwhelming majority of the Indian population, around three quarters, is poor and vulnerable and it is a staggering 836 million as of 2004-05. This includes 70 million or 6.4 per cent who may be characterised as extremely poor with a per capita consumption of less than or three-quarters of the official poverty line. To this should be added 167 million of those who are poor with consumption not more than that fixed as the official poverty line. If this is relaxed to include those with a per capita consumption of up to 25 per cent above the poverty line, called marginally poor here, then we find another 207 million. These three groups account for 444 million or 40.8 per cent of the population. To this we add those with a per capita consumption between 1.25 and two times the poverty line as vulnerable and this group of poor and vulnerable comes to 836 million of Indians or well over 75 per cent of the population.
The next major finding is the close association between poverty and vulnerability with one’s social identity. The two social groups who are at the bottom by this classification are the SCs/STs, who constitute the bottom layer, and the Muslims, who are in the next layer. This does not mean that the other groups are far better off. The next group is the OBCs but better than the two bottom layers. Even for those who do not belong to any of these groups, the incidence is 55 per cent.”
This analysis confirms the policy and political arguments some of us have been making for the last many years. This also validates our argument against the present notions and definitions of the "Poverty Line"
But the key questions are:
a) What are the policy and political implications of such an analysis?
b) Whether the present policy and budget paradigm and the mode and pattern of economic growth perpetuate the existing marginalization and the growing inequality?
c) What are some of the key policy prioritization required to transform the situation in a more proactive and positive way in the next five to ten years?
Here are some of my responses (only meant for those who are further interested in the paper)
1) The methodological framework gives a far better analytical mode to compare poverty across classes, particularly in terms of status of Education, Work etc. Such a comparative analytical perspective also gives a sense about the nature and character of economic inequality, in relation to poverty and social inequalities. Such an analysis also helps to develop far more focused policy prioritization and interventions. (If it all there is Political Will to do so)
2) The paper clearly points out how cumulative marginalizations (in terms of cast/social hierarchy, access to education, access to employment etc) perpetuate impoverisation and multiple forms of inequality. It would have been good to get a sense about the gender dimension in the analysis.
3) When inequality has a direct correlation with identity, social locations and historical marginalization that is indeed a recipe for political discontent, contestations and consequent violence and political unrest. The consequences of inequality, cumulative marginalization and entrenched social identity may challenge and change the present political equations and formation in India.
4) The fact that there is an assertive middle class in all sections (SC/ST/ Muslim/ OBC. etc) will enable the potential emergence of an articulate and assertive leadership among these sections and this will eventually influence the political process. This is already evident in many states like Tamil Nadu, UP, Bihar etc.
5) While the study is based on the 2005-6 data, it will be good to know whether CMP, NREGA etc of UPA Government made any difference. Apart from the rhetoric of the so-called "Aam Admi"( 75 percent of the population) ,to what extend the UPA public policy and Budget allocation made a difference ?
In fact, even in this budget, there is hardly any increase in the allocation for SC/ST. Even the writing off the agricultural loans may benefit the "Others" more than SC/ST, Muslims - though OBC also may get some benefits. While it is good to have 20% increases in the allocation for Education, that is not good enough to substantially change the conditions of SC/ST and Muslims.
6) The fact of the matter is more than 40 percent of the population is really , really poor and at the receiving end of cumulative marginalization. The vulnerable poor( most of them may be OBCs) still may have better bargaining power and also tend intervene in the mainstream political process. But the marginalized poor and poor may challenge the mainstream political process, by initiating a serious of "micro" struggles or even armed contestations to the state to challenge the existing custodians of the state and corporate power.
7) This shows that India is at the threshold of a new political transition in the next ten years. If the main-stream parties( Congress, Left etc) fail to significantly challenge and change their present assumptions and approaches, they will lose a significant constituencies and new actors and new political formations( both reactionary and mainstream) will emerge on the scene in the next ten to fifteen years.
8) The present mode of urban-centric, service sector driven growth , at the cost of agriculture, small and medium level enterprises and rural infrastructure will create new population pressure, rural-urban migration and new forms urban poverty and consequent increase of crime and violence.
It would have been great if the paper has given some in-depth analysis of the rural-urban implications and how social and economic locations affect access to quality education and gainful employment.
9) It seems more than 80 % of the beneficiaries of the economic growth are the upper cast, urban , professionally educated class. This will have implications in terms real estate ownership pattern( for instance there are number of "vegetarian" housing societies or exclusive "cast" apartments-without making it obvious- in the new Metros), English media( as upper cast-educated will be the consumers) and corporate leadership( who tend to appropriate or control the mainstream political process through election funding and new forms of patronage).
We do need a new Policy and Political Paradigm to ensure a stable, secure , democratic and vibrant India. I am not sure how many Political Parties are even thinking beyond the next election or next six months! If so, that is not a good sign for the future of Indian Democracy.
(This note is based on a recent paper by Arjun Sengupta, KP Kanana and Ravindran in the Economic and Political Weekly of India, on March 15, 2008)
Poverty is not merely about numbers. Poverty is the denial of right to live with dignity and perpetuated by an active process of impoverisation that emerge out of unequal and unjust power relationship.
The notion of impoverisation (or the process of the active creation of poverty with in society or economy) needs to be seen in the context of social, economic and political inequality. Such inequality is perpetuated by entrenched identities, emerging out of cumulative marginalization; poverty is no longer a humanitarian issue, but a deeply political issue. Such political economy of impoverisation, resulting in active denial of social and economic rights, may induce more violent conflicts and political unrest in a given society. Such conflicts may further pose problem for economic growth and social security.
A recent paper (Economic & Political Weekly, March 15, 2008 49 .India’s common people: Who are they, How Many are they and How Do they live? Arjun Sengupta, K P Kannan, G Raveendran) very clearly demonstrates the link between poverty, inequality and identity in the Indian context.
To give a sense about the broader arguments of the paper, I quote the key highlights from the paper :
“This paper attempts to define the common people of India in terms of levels of consumption and examines their socio-economic profile in different periods of time, since the early 1990s with a view to assessing how the economic growth process has impacted on their lives. The findings should worry everyone. Despite high growth, more than three-fourths of Indians are poor and vulnerable with a level of consumption not more than twice the official poverty line. This proportion of the population which can be categorised as the “common people” is much higher among certain social groups, especially for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. There is also evidence to suggest that inequality is widening between the common people and the better-off sections of society.”
The authors sum up their excellent analysis with the following findings:
“To sum up, an overwhelming majority of the Indian population, around three quarters, is poor and vulnerable and it is a staggering 836 million as of 2004-05. This includes 70 million or 6.4 per cent who may be characterised as extremely poor with a per capita consumption of less than or three-quarters of the official poverty line. To this should be added 167 million of those who are poor with consumption not more than that fixed as the official poverty line. If this is relaxed to include those with a per capita consumption of up to 25 per cent above the poverty line, called marginally poor here, then we find another 207 million. These three groups account for 444 million or 40.8 per cent of the population. To this we add those with a per capita consumption between 1.25 and two times the poverty line as vulnerable and this group of poor and vulnerable comes to 836 million of Indians or well over 75 per cent of the population.
The next major finding is the close association between poverty and vulnerability with one’s social identity. The two social groups who are at the bottom by this classification are the SCs/STs, who constitute the bottom layer, and the Muslims, who are in the next layer. This does not mean that the other groups are far better off. The next group is the OBCs but better than the two bottom layers. Even for those who do not belong to any of these groups, the incidence is 55 per cent.”
This analysis confirms the policy and political arguments some of us have been making for the last many years. This also validates our argument against the present notions and definitions of the "Poverty Line"
But the key questions are:
a) What are the policy and political implications of such an analysis?
b) Whether the present policy and budget paradigm and the mode and pattern of economic growth perpetuate the existing marginalization and the growing inequality?
c) What are some of the key policy prioritization required to transform the situation in a more proactive and positive way in the next five to ten years?
Here are some of my responses (only meant for those who are further interested in the paper)
1) The methodological framework gives a far better analytical mode to compare poverty across classes, particularly in terms of status of Education, Work etc. Such a comparative analytical perspective also gives a sense about the nature and character of economic inequality, in relation to poverty and social inequalities. Such an analysis also helps to develop far more focused policy prioritization and interventions. (If it all there is Political Will to do so)
2) The paper clearly points out how cumulative marginalizations (in terms of cast/social hierarchy, access to education, access to employment etc) perpetuate impoverisation and multiple forms of inequality. It would have been good to get a sense about the gender dimension in the analysis.
3) When inequality has a direct correlation with identity, social locations and historical marginalization that is indeed a recipe for political discontent, contestations and consequent violence and political unrest. The consequences of inequality, cumulative marginalization and entrenched social identity may challenge and change the present political equations and formation in India.
4) The fact that there is an assertive middle class in all sections (SC/ST/ Muslim/ OBC. etc) will enable the potential emergence of an articulate and assertive leadership among these sections and this will eventually influence the political process. This is already evident in many states like Tamil Nadu, UP, Bihar etc.
5) While the study is based on the 2005-6 data, it will be good to know whether CMP, NREGA etc of UPA Government made any difference. Apart from the rhetoric of the so-called "Aam Admi"( 75 percent of the population) ,to what extend the UPA public policy and Budget allocation made a difference ?
In fact, even in this budget, there is hardly any increase in the allocation for SC/ST. Even the writing off the agricultural loans may benefit the "Others" more than SC/ST, Muslims - though OBC also may get some benefits. While it is good to have 20% increases in the allocation for Education, that is not good enough to substantially change the conditions of SC/ST and Muslims.
6) The fact of the matter is more than 40 percent of the population is really , really poor and at the receiving end of cumulative marginalization. The vulnerable poor( most of them may be OBCs) still may have better bargaining power and also tend intervene in the mainstream political process. But the marginalized poor and poor may challenge the mainstream political process, by initiating a serious of "micro" struggles or even armed contestations to the state to challenge the existing custodians of the state and corporate power.
7) This shows that India is at the threshold of a new political transition in the next ten years. If the main-stream parties( Congress, Left etc) fail to significantly challenge and change their present assumptions and approaches, they will lose a significant constituencies and new actors and new political formations( both reactionary and mainstream) will emerge on the scene in the next ten to fifteen years.
8) The present mode of urban-centric, service sector driven growth , at the cost of agriculture, small and medium level enterprises and rural infrastructure will create new population pressure, rural-urban migration and new forms urban poverty and consequent increase of crime and violence.
It would have been great if the paper has given some in-depth analysis of the rural-urban implications and how social and economic locations affect access to quality education and gainful employment.
9) It seems more than 80 % of the beneficiaries of the economic growth are the upper cast, urban , professionally educated class. This will have implications in terms real estate ownership pattern( for instance there are number of "vegetarian" housing societies or exclusive "cast" apartments-without making it obvious- in the new Metros), English media( as upper cast-educated will be the consumers) and corporate leadership( who tend to appropriate or control the mainstream political process through election funding and new forms of patronage).
We do need a new Policy and Political Paradigm to ensure a stable, secure , democratic and vibrant India. I am not sure how many Political Parties are even thinking beyond the next election or next six months! If so, that is not a good sign for the future of Indian Democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)