Going Deeper
Is spring ahead?
Is spring approaching in our politics? Iqbal Ahmed/ Drik News
THERE has always been a raging debate on the primacy of politics over development. With the transition of mankind over the ages that brought about enlightenment, making life easier, and now ushering in globalisation and the ascendancy of an economic philosophy that puts freedom of capital over the interest of the society, the debate continues whether development and democratic pluralism cannot be fellow travelers on the same train. Indeed why not, as politics is defined as "all the activities of conflict, cooperation and negotiation involved in the use, production and distribution of resources, whether material or ideal, whether at local national or international level, or whether in the private or public domain (Adrian Leftwich)." The debate is further strengthened because development, ipso facto, cannot take place without politics. Since politics from Plato's time, through the medieval ages to modern times, has evolved, if not entirely in terms of Francis Fukuyama's teleological terminus of history or "end of history," it is now universally recognised that democracy has triumphed as the best method of conducting public business. The reason for democracy's triumph over other systems, mostly authoritarian based on command economy, is that under other systems development has been iniquitous, leading to lack of social cohesion. Consequent revolts by the workers in the urban sector and the marginalised people, both rural and urban, now armed with the fruits of globalisation in terms of information, have often led to anarchic situations resulting in closure of factories, slow down in FDI with consequent loss of employment (both actual and potential), and in our case shifting of orders in the case of RMG to other competitor countries, and demand that natural resources should totally be owned by the people and no government should be allowed to barter away any part of the natural resources without their consent. Expectedly, there has been a negative side to ultra-nationalism. Be it domestic or foreign, it is axiomatic that law and order situation, predictability of rules, liberal remittance of profit, among others, encourage investment that have multiplier effect in revitalising the economy. But economic factors alone cannot dictate the pace of development of any society. Jonathan Rauch (of Brookings Institution) is of the view that moral and political views that may differ substantially may not necessarily lead to economic meltdown if the political parties behave in responsible manner. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz is in favour of taming global capitalism. He would like the developed economies, and if possible the developing countries as well, to emulate Sweden and other Scandinavian countries that are highly integrated into global economy, and are developed themselves but still provide strong social protection and make high level of investment in people. Faced with global tumult the world is recalling the forgotten book published in 1932, titled "Modern Corporation and Private Property," by Adolph Augustus Berle that was considered as "the economic bible of the Roosevelt administration." FDR wrested Berle from the Hoover camp to join his "brain trust." Berle examined how markets had become concentrated in just a few hundred firms and how senior managers arrogated upon themselves the power that should have belonged to the legal owners, the shareholders. The easy consumer credit and home loans made available to the Americans, who went in droves to the cities under Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson's reforms, exploded into mass consumption, causing the 1929 crash. Though Berle's question, "between a political organisation of society and an economic organisation of society, which will be the dominant factor," remained unanswered, the lesson of the Great Crash clearly indicated that giant modern corporations, unnatural economic institutions in Berle's view, had failed the stockholders and the public and would do so again if left unregulated. Harvard economics Professor Richard Parker, who resurrected Berle in a review of his book, wrote that Berle clearly felt that "government needed to bear final responsibility for the economy by using its powers to balance supply and demand (and needed) to manage the managers, not just for shareholders' benefit but in accordance with new rules codifying the collective rights of stakeholders and the broader social responsibility of corporations." In countries like ours, still groping around for an answer to Berle's question about the primacy of politics and economics, we had seen the kind of political terrorism by the party in power victimising the opposition parties of the day, and the contagion of corruption pushing the body politic of the country to terminal condition, distorting the market mechanism through political intervention inevitably leading to inefficiency in the economy, using money and muscle power affecting the entire political process, human security becoming not only elusive but mythical. While ethnic and racial tension in Bangladesh is minimal, religious and ideological divides remain. Floating of Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) by the adherents of Harkatul Jihad Islami (HUJI), reportedly with the ultimate objective of establishing Shariah law in the country, would be in contravention of the constitution and the ethos of the nation. It will be good to remember that the terrorist events of 9/11 have substantially changed the Western perspective on the source of threat to their way of life. The end of the Cold War hastened the Western determination not to tolerate "democracy deficit" for its strategic interests. Western assessment about a country's fulfillment of its national and international obligations determines its right to remain a member of the society of states. Besides, since civility can not be apportioned according to race, religion or colour, the comparatively less developed economies cannot be allowed to remain disconnected from the international community on the pretext of their poverty or on grounds of so-called Asian values -- mistakenly defined as putting greater emphasis on collective welfare at the cost of individual liberty. Bearing in mind the warning of Joseph Stiglitz that "market economy does not automatically guarantee growth, social justice, or even economic efficiency; achieving those ends require that government play an important role" we may do well to follow Stiglitz 's call for "moral growth" that is sustainable not only for today but for future generations as well. We look forward to a growth that is "shared equitably, creating a society with more social justice and solidarity rather than one with deep rifts and cleavages." People hope the coming elections will bring in the blooming flowers of spring.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments