When every adult in a polity is granted a vote, that is called democracy. As we already know, by voting for one of the candidates chosen by tightly-controlled political parties, we are expected to believe that we have indicated how we wish to be governed. Our choices are the policies uttered by the parties seeking election. I prefer to believe in Santa Claus, as must all those living in poverty in countries ruled by rich elites holding hands with the barons of commerce, industry, and anything else which has a $ sign.
After election, the party in government may distinguish between ‘core’ policies (to be implemented) and ‘non-core’ policies (to be jettisoned); or introduce policies it had said that it would not implement. An example is the value-added tax (the GST) introduced in Australia in breach of the election promise. It is a regressive tax, because it hurts the poorest the most. Politicians and tax collectors just love it; revenue grows with inflation. Then, those people elected to rule us do not have to possess any specified skills, or relevant experiences, or operational aptitudes, even to become Ministers – those responsible for key policies, eg. going to war, the economic and social development of the nation, and so on.
That is Western capitalistic democracy – open to manipulation by self-seekers. The author of ‘Worlds on fire’ (see my previous post) provides examples from all over the world. The ordinary people remain poor, while only the ruling class gets any benefit (lots of it) from successful private entrepreneurship. This is not to deny the entrepreneur his just reward, provided it is earned without corruption or exploitation.
Some East Asian governments have a divergent concept of citizen-participation in politics and capitalistic governance. They prefer command economies, while not denying democracy in some form. (Would there not be scope for some private benefit for some family members?) Where ‘market forces’ may benefit an economy such as Australia in an unplanned manner, because they represent the net effect of collective opportunism (or greed?), a command economy is planned and controlled by the authorities (possibly with less spin-doctoring about personal freedom and the right to fail).
Globalising offers, but perhaps only definitionally, greater economic efficiency in the utilisation of scarce resources in a market economy. But, at what price? The transfer of control of the nation’s resources to investing capitalistic foreigners and/or to powerful minorities within the nation, with little to no residual or resulting benefit to the bulk of the people? The concept of ‘trickle-down’ benefits to the poor can be demonstrated by a poor child seeking alms outside an expensive restaurant.
Should those people living in poverty be considered to have a right of some kind to share in the wealth being developed? Or, does the concept of a capitalistic democracy deny such an entitlement? Would it be fair to ask the religious leaders in such impoverished nations to respond to my question?
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 