Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

The famous definition of Democracy is modified slightly on the title of an article in ‘Vanity Fair’ by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph E Stiglitz. For me, the democracies of many countries have entered this phase, though elections happen every 4/5 years as per as the convention in those countries.

I have attended many debates on the theme boon/curse of science. We try to argue how humans have used/abused it for benefits and permanent damages. Here the accepted view is that science is value neutral and it all depends on the humans who use/abuse the developments in science. Today people speak of the need to inculcate values along with the explosion of knowledge anyone comes in contact with.

In the same way, there are many political systems and ideologies, ranging from capitalism to communism, democracy to monarchy. When it is easy to see that there are inherent differences, it is also possible to see positive and negative interpretations of all these in the lives of several people. We may have examples of generous and dictatorial monarchs and likewise. Accepting the benefits and shortcomings of each systems, I feel it is the morality of the humans who run the systems making an inclusive development possible or not.

Many economists in the world are the proponents of free trade. Though the system in itself may not be faulty, developed countries has used it for their mileage in the pretext of helping the developing countries. It has helped to widen the barriers between the rich and the poor. When it has helped the developed countries to consume the products out of the bio-diversity of the tropical lands (developing countries) and to import the goods produced in developed countriedd, it has forced the farmers of developing countries to cultivate goods mostly for export and to reduce their nutritional intake and forced them to starvation. (Utsa Patnaik, The Republic of Hunger)

If I interpreted the title of the article in Utsa patnaik’s terms, it is attempt of recolonization.  In one side, it is the attempt of develop countries to recolonize developing countries, it is also the attempt of multinational companies to use the resources of the world for their benefit. It is also an attempt by the 1% to colonialize the 99% of the same country.

Joseph E Stiglitz would point to the various mass movements (Arab Spring, We are 99% in US and others) as a response to this. I would see the development of nationalism and right wing movements also as an after-effect of this (though I don’t see that beneficial either).  There is beautiful article on Bolivia and their way of response against this menace of recolonization and associated problems.                         (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/world/americas/turnabout-in-bolivia-as-economy-rises-from-instability.html?_r=0). 




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s