Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Dev Raj Dahal

Introduction

Social science theories and ideologies are not neutral in origin and application. They are the product of specific historical circumstances and had served the interests of certain groups of society, legitimized certain forms of power and institutions and evolved knowledge and praxis of development. Liberals, conservatives and socialists—three dominant ideologies of modern era—have dissimilar image of human beings, nature of society and ideals. Political liberals believe in the primacy of "human freedom" and conservatives in " law and order." Individual freedom favors private property, self-interest, autonomy of free enterprise, creativity and the right of owners. Free market ensures benefits to all rational individuals from a free exchange and produces the best possible outcome to them. Conservatives emphasize the importance of tradition, order, institutions and certain national traits of a polity. The central theme of social democracy is “social justice.” It believes in the democratic use of state power to achieve the goal of freedom, social equality, justice and peace.

Social justice is realized first in the domain of politics, then in law and in the universalization of citizens' rights and concerns. Social equality, in this sense, requires a kind of regulation of freedom in the accumulation of unlimited wealth and political power as well as evolutionary change of political order. It does not, however, undermine the space for freedom of innovation and enterprise. As the image of human is one of social beings, they believe, true freedom can be realized only in the context of their embeddedness in society. According to Nobel Laureate Amaratya Sen there is an intrinsic link between freedom and development. Social democratic parties aim to establish socialism through constitutional reforms and electoral competition, not through revolution or extra-constitutional means advocated by V. I. Lenin or Mao. They favor progressive and more proportional direct taxation on property on the ground of social justice to the powerless.

Classical socialists sought to achieve a just, classless society that would allow for the full development of human potential and capacity. The goal of socialism, as Henri Saint-Simon argued, "is to afford all members of society the greatest possible opportunity for the development of their faculties." Views of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels held sway for some decades, which claimed socialism through public ownership, nationalization and planned operation of the means of production, distribution and consumption of public goods. Post-Marxist socialists opted for reformist and revisionist position and greater democracy in the party. But, Rosa Luxemburg doubted the possibility of reform in capitalism and called for revolutionary political action. She was critical of V. I. Lenin and Bolsheviks for their belief in "centralism" of the party state and destruction of human freedom.

The progress towards parliamentary socialism, establishment of Socialist International (1923), evolutionary socialism of Eduard Bernstein and the Fabian society also moderated the thinking of socialist parties. Bernstein, the leading exponent of revisionist school, rejected Marx's prediction of the imminent collapse of capitalism by class war and argued that democratic reforms have altered the nature of capitalism by the legalization of trade unions' rights to organization, codetermination, collective bargaining and peaceful progress of working class. In this debate Karl Kautsky's position remained the central one. He criticized the left wing revolutionary ideology of Luxemburg and gradualist approach of Bernstein in favor of "evolutionary determinism." Rudolf Hilferding, the leading social democrat, also showed that the transition from Marxism to revisionism has been facilitated by the incapacity of orthodox Marxists to develop a scientific analysis of social dynamics and the scientific prediction of future developments. Industrial revolution, reformation movement and enlightenment of Europe triggered "production revolution" having a critical bearing in the distribution of wealth, ownership of workers in economic participation, political consciousness and the enlargement of the space for freedom. A relatively better developmental framework that evolved in Europe provided sound basis for the sharing of wealth and political power by the weaker sections of society. In 1942, these developments led Joseph A. Schumpeter to conclude, “A socialist form of society will inevitably emerge from an equally inevitable decomposition of capitalist society.”

For almost four decades following the Great Depression of the 1930s caused by over supply and lesser demand of goods, the power of the nation-states--the instrument of Keynesian intervention and the attachment of workers and peasants to the welfare state, full employment and a balance between capital and labor--held sway. Keynesian macro framework not only remedied the problem of market failure but also laid the conditions for interdependence of increased wages, mass consumption spending, job creation and new investments. The economic bargaining power of ordinary people was rooted into mixed economy and majoritarian politics. Revenue circulated within the country and generated financial stability.

The European social democracies have endorsed both the instruments of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-- civil and political rights, and social, economic and cultural rights. They perceive equity (social justice) and economic efficiency (market competition) as complementary components of public policy and extended Social Charter in the European Union continental sphere. The North Atlantic democracy has, however, ratified only civil and political rights. Its democracy is, therefore, called liberal democracy. Liberal democratic parties basically espouse the basic values and ideology of laissez faire liberalism and its economic system of capitalism considering the primacy of economic relations over all others. At the outset, its economy begins with atomized individuals with purely monetary motives and places them in pursuit of hedonistic utility whether it is production, distribution or consumption. A critic of this primacy of economics, Mark Granovetter argues, "Actors do not behave or decide to behave as atoms outside a social context, nor do they adhere slavishly to a script written for them by the particular intersection of social categories that they happen to occupy."

Why did social democracy suffer in the 1970s marking the retreat of welfare state? The main reason is that after the emergence of post-materialist values, a large section of working class was incorporated into the middle class. A number of non-class values like peace, ecology, gender and multi-culturalism influenced the concerns of diverse electorate. Similarly, social democracy had difficulty in managing the globalization of economy, polity and society as neo-liberal revolution posited a powerful revolt against the welfare state, social control over the means of production and, consequently, contributed to the de-ideologization and de-politicization of market.

The economic crisis of the 1970s led to the Thatcher-Reagan counter-revolution and the subsequent spread of neo-liberalism in the late 1980s and 1990s viewed the government the problem and not the solution. Information revolution generated a general crisis in industrialism, of which both capitalism and socialism were intrinsic parts (Toffler, 1984:244)). This means it was a general crisis of the ideology of industrial democracy rather than a particular crisis of social democracy. Revolution in digital technology and the Internet fundamentally altered the economic landscape of the world causing what Joseph Shumpeter calls "creative destruction" of the old political economy of manufacturing chain linking raw materials to finished products, finance, education and communication. These elements also created new transnational elites, networks of finance, communication, market and cross-border transactions. As a result, command and control system under which the state restricted society’s autonomous development, class based political parties and civil society (like trade unions) suffered global disfavor and decline.

The critical challenge for social democrats now is how to integrate non-class based movements into political parties' sphere by providing them reciprocal linkages, sufficient policy attention and means of self-accountability while at the same time renewing demands for internal party democracy, pluralist responsibility and receptive functions. Modern global economy is characterized by easy mobility of capital, service and technology that connect corporate managers with distant markets and relocate their production in any part of the world where social control is minimal or not at all. It creates a paradox in political economy: while economy is becoming extrovert due to the emergence of single world market, politics is becoming introvert, decentralized and fragmented as people are reclaiming the responsibility for self-governance and national self-determination.

Post-modern political conditions are also threatening the prevailing conception of modernity and resurrecting the validity of pluralism. The dynamics of class-based accumulation led George Soros to proclaim the "crises of global capitalism." The economic effects of these crises to democracy have been enormous. Soros, for example, warns "the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all arenas of life is endangering our open and democratic society"(1999:10-14). The new global economy in the absence of global governing mechanism, is exacting wrenching changes in non-market institutions, such as families, societies, communities and the nation-states, weakening their social anchor and eventually their economic stability. Argues William Greider, "The global competition for cost advantage effectively weakens the sovereignty of every nation by promoting a fierce contest among countries for lower public standards." It is in this context that social democrats try to harmonize economic with social, political and ecological policies and seek to offset some of the negative effects of Washington Consensus on neo-liberal policies. Edward S. Herman says, “The performance of the third world countries in the neo-liberal era has been poor in comparison with the earlier era of greater independence, state intervention and protectionism’ (2004,59).

After the mid-1990s the elitist tendencies of neo-liberal regimes accelerated their electoral defeats at the hands of social democrats in Europe. By using their human and fundamental citizen rights the leaders of Europe reinvented their social democracy with "The Third Way," saying yes to the market economy, but no to the market society. It is a third way between classical forms of solidaristic compromise and new forms of economic deregulation seeking to mediate between liberalism and neo-conservatism (George Bush's variety). It is a pragmatic center in the sense that it makes efforts to make social projects a part of the role of government. Left wing critics of "The Third Way" have rebelled against what they see as their departure from the Social Democratic Party's traditional commitments to social justice, solidarity and support for the marginalized and excluded. The Third Way's deliberate break from the left version of socialism facilitated their conversion into British Prime Minister Tony Blair's vision of “new labor” which brought him more support from the voters than he lost. The chief exponents of "The Third Way" are found to be closer to what critics call "Clinton-like substitution of theatrical presentation for public policy." It is, many assume, that the German, Scandinavian and French social democratic parties are working by persuasion to strike a balance between neo-conservatism and interventionist state.

They think that neo-liberal variant of winner-take-all markets are neither usual nor desirable. And the pressures that drive the winners to ever greater efficiency are prodding them to formulate proper national and regional strategies both to avoid the risk of social upheaval and cope with the technological challenges of globalization. The new agenda of social democrats in Europe and Asia involve: reevaluation of their political policies and economic orientations focusing on electoral reform, public participation and decision-making, devolution of power, human rights, sustainable development, peace and social justice for women, minorities and weaker sections of society. They are also seeking to foster the harmony of national, regional and global justice. “After all social democracy has always presented itself as proceeding from a logic in which the needs and potentialities of human beings take priority over the needs of capital” (Lebowitz, 2004:19). One pertinent question for Nepal is: How can the Nepalese policy makers endogenize the policy agenda when it is caught in an unequal international technological, economic and political order? This paper basically explains how Nepalese policy makers used exogenous ideas to solve the country's problems. It also discusses as to why it is difficult to strengthen citizens' voice and visibility and build their capacities for democratic development in the country.

(To be continued…)