Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s theory needs suitable change in SA context

Democracy is easier to define using prepositions than verbs. We say that democracy is distinctive as government "by" and "of" the people, not merely "for" them. But this does not tell us what either democratic citizens or their governments are supposed to "do".

These were the words of three political scientists such as John T. Rourke, Richard P.Hiskes and Cyrus Ernesto Zirakzadeh which have been compiled in a book entitled Direct Democracy and International Politics.

For us in Nepal the problem is that we possess so many definitions of democracy enunciated by various political actors which in the ultimate analysis has confused the people of this country. For example, the NC has its own set of definition which is summarily rejected by the UML and going to the jungles, the Maoists have their own separate definitions that is diametrically opposed to the conclusions arrived at by the others. In the process, the people have become disillusioned with the innumerable versions of democracy.

However, the Nepalese people slightly agree with Joseph Schumpter’s idea of democracy who holds that it is a "method"’ rather than an "end in itself". The ten years of this system in Nepal has albeit confined the non-partisan individuals to go to voting periodically for other sets of personalities who will make policy and the laws later..

Not less interesting is the opinion of James Madison who holds that: "if men were angels, no government would be necessary…In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

In our case, the people undoubtedly wish at time of the voting that their men in power will look to their pressing issues. However, what has been seen in actual practice is that one the government is in power, no force on earth can force it to "’control itself". It becomes like a wild elephant.

Democracy may mean different thing to different men, sets or groups. It might be different for those who live in comparatively developed societies and not necessarily be the same for those who live in less developed countries like ours. The stage of development in a particular country in the sectors such as education, economy, social security and the likes perhaps would best determine the longevity of the democratic order. It is however a method albeit to achieve best results for a country in all the possible sectors of the society which again badly rests on the actors of the system on how they proceed to achieve those aims. At least I do not possess any illusion about the leaders who were manning this system. When the actors were rotten eggs, the end results must be a chaotic one and confusing.

Some even say that poverty and democracy never go together. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen is strong supporter of this theory. Sen maintains that a democratic set up remains ever committed to the poor section of the society and that responsible governments in the system take care of the poverty stricken people and hence no deaths due to poverty.

I slightly beg to differ to Sen’s established theory. In my opinion, the country where Amartya Sen was born is a vibrant democracy. The system has already taken deep roots there undoubtedly. However, it is this country where the number of people dying of starvation perhaps has no parallel. Let me remind the Nobel laureate the shocking deaths in KALAHANDI (Madhya Pradesh perhaps in India) due to draught caused poverty. The government is definitely responsible there. But what about the deaths caused by poverty. A staggering number of people in India continue to die of hunger in the face and in the presence of a responsible government. Such unfortunate deaths happen in India whose elites and media remain round the clock conscious. But yet it happens. So what of Sen’s theory?

Sen’s assumption could be that the "elite" and the "media" remain responsible towards the weaker section of the society. Indeed, the Indian elites and the media there are responsible towards the weaker section. But why it is that the people die in the want of food?

Democracy perhaps is not the panacea for all the ailments that a society faces at a particular moment. It is a method but not an end in itself.

Coming back to Nepal, let us recall that late last year many people died out of hunger in remote district of Humla and Jumla. We have a so-called "functioning and vibrant" democracy since ten years or so. Still why the deaths were occuring? The general assumption is that the media and the elites inform or persuade the men in power regarding the state of poverty in a particular part of the country. However, in Jumla, for example, neither we have elites there nor the media. How there could be elites when there is no scope for education. And why should the media be there to lose the political benefits that is so easily available in Kathmandu-the power center. A pertinent question indeed.

Nepalese scholars believe that unlike the uneven distribution of the income, there is definitely the same situation for the media and the elites. Both have converged to Kathmandu. Thus neither the elite nor the media have anything to do with the poverty stricken people of Humla and Jumla. However, it was at least the Nepali media, not the elite, which brought to the fore the deaths from hunger in Humla and Jumla. What could be expected of from a cetralised model what we possess in effect. We do not possess any mechanism to change the patters prevailing in the society. The theory, thus, enunciated by Amartya Sen perhaps fits into the Developed West model but not to India, Nepal or even in Bangladesh.

In essence we have party and democracy both. However, the fact is that both were not working in unison. Party and democracy are unknown to each other. The party-cracy appears to have dominated the whole scene and hence all the anomalies. In effect, the power should go up from the bottom, however, it just the otherwise in Nepal. Just imajine can a Jumlaite think of wielding power for his or society’s benefits. Definitely not. He or she will have to come to Kathmandu to beg a piece of power. Perhaps this could also be the cause for the deaths in Humla and Jumla which might spread elsewhere as well time permitting more so if Koirala continues in power and quarrels with Deuba in a manner just witnessed.

Thus, Amartya Sen’s theory perhaps needs timely change. Soory Nobel laureate Mr. Sen! I beg to differ you on this count.

Headline | National | 5 Question  | Editorial | International | Past |