Power determines the direction and the degree of societal change. Living in 2020, we are not just redefining global trade patterns, supply chains, production, and trade and commerce, but we are actively changing their very meaning. The Sino-American geopolitical tensions, new alliances, a more assertive Third World, and higher polarization indicate that we are at an inflexion point. As we live through a defining moment in history, we are surrounded by uncertainty. With this uncertainty, there are active rivalries and political disruptions that will define global economics for years, if not decades. However, the usually ignored problem of the compromise of democratic values for providing life-support to a broken economic system is once again at the forefront.
As we move into a relatively new world, there is a need to rebuild some of what we have lost, but there is also a need for reforms, real and radical reforms. Fortunately, a crisis provides us with an opportunity to rethink some of the basic tenets that form the foundation of our socio-economic chapter.
The Absence of Equity
With the predominance of Washington Consensus in the minds of policymakers, economic growth was seen as a solution to all problems. While the questions on inequality and inclusion remained secondary, there was a general belief in the efficacy of “trickle-down” economics (wherein the burden of taxation on the wealthier sections of the society should be reduced to stimulate private investment). The ideas made inroads into Asian economies in the 1990s, around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. 30 years later, there has been a tremendous increase in the efficiency of the global economy, global supply chains, technology, and foreign investment. However, there has been a no, if not a decline, in social welfare and the empowerment of the people. Incomes of the average citizens and the economically weaker sections have stagnated in most nations, while profit maximisation for shareholders has become the most important single goal, not just for companies, but also for several governments. Policies worldwide have been skewed in favour of marketisation and disproportionately for the ‘haves’ by financially draining the ‘have-nots’. This kind of concentration, combined with modern technology and expertise, allows for the sale of democratic policies and the manufacture of public opinion.
As unfortunate as it sounds, with such a high degree of inequality we have divided ourselves into 2 different worlds: one of affluence, the other of penury. The classes benefitting off this structure, cannot escape from its cost.
Power is the capacity to influence. It is the primary determinant of any kind of decision-making, but it is also subjective. It is impossible to define the degrees of power in the society in measurable terms, but a better understanding can be achieved by taking a step back.
The Sale of Democratic Values
What determines power in the 21st century? Money and Wealth.
With the advent of neoliberalism, the footprint of pecuniary values has expanded at the cost of human and ethical values. Money and wealth have systematically hijacked political institutions. More importantly, a broken economic model has attacked democratic politics. The increasing relevance of campaign contributions in elections with the opacity surrounding it, the increasing use of corporate social responsibility funds for political gain, and the rising dependence of the politicians on funding for elections, is pushing policymakers farther away from accountability and the public good. Combine that with the ‘quid pro quo’ that comes with it.
While the ‘money factor’ has become more important, its concentration raises several other issues. Globally, inequality has only worsened, particularly in India and the United States. This translates into a political system, which rewards the people for the abundance of wealth and income at the cost of the average citizens, along with an economic system that promotes market fundamentalism. In democracies, politicians are virtually dependent on campaign contributions to win elections. The restrictions and disclosure requirements are being systematically eroded and the whole exercise of contributions is being taken away from the public domain.
The 2016 United States Presidential Election cost $2.4 billion to the candidates, while the Congressional Elections on the same year had a ‘declared’ price tag of $4 billion. In about 86% of these elections, the candidate who spent the most won the election. While countries like Canada and Britain have certain limits on spending with shorter elections, enforcement is key. In India, on the other hand, elections have become the world’s costliest. The parties spent close to $8 billion with a high degree of shadow funding through the controversial ‘Electoral Bonds’ scheme. In autocratic countries, the situation is even worse. Even though the state institutions in such countries hold a considerably higher degree of control on governance, no accountability is ensured. The absence of civil liberties also allows for a greater compromise of the public good for unfavourable policies.
What is at Stake?
Big money often demands ‘quid pro quo’ for returns on the electoral investment. However, the degree of infiltration of big money in democratic institutions is so high that it is resulting in a straight-up denial of real issues. Issues such as the climate change, lack of spending on the social sector, even when it is being pleaded by the voters for years- indicate a mindset among policymakers that voters demands are no longer paramount, and its ignorance will not cost re-election. The value of voting is at stake. Across the world for the latter half of this decade, lip service to idealistic goals and the excuse of political pragmatism for its non-application in policy has become the definition of politics. Take the example of the 2015 Paris Agreement, where global leaders united to protect the environment. 5 years since 2015, almost all the countries are substantially lagging behind their climate goals and some like the United States and India are rolling back environmental safeguards to further jeopardize the environment. Or take the example of bridging inequalities, a ‘need of the hour’ which every leader in the world has declared sacrosanct, but its implications on policies, none.
Political platitudes, therefore, give rise to bad faith in elections and agreements, but this widespread lip-service is not random. It is deeply connected to the influence of money. There is awareness among the voters on the issues of erosion of civil liberties, climate change, and inequality and while these votes are required to win elections, policymakers have realised that public opinion is not enough. They heavily depend on contributions from a section of the society that wields a significantly higher degree of economic power than the average citizen and has sharply different interests, at least in socio-economic terms. Policymakers, after being elected on big money, are then supposed to equivocate on such issues, which gives rise to these platitudes. This nexus maintains an exploitative status quo.
Misplaced Accusations
Globally, people are beginning to realise just how much they have lost in terms of political space and voice, but politics in all major economies remains a mess (to say the least). People demanding reclamation of their political space and security for their liberties, across the spectrum of political ideologies is promoting authoritarian populism, particularly right-wing populism. This explains the rise of Donald Trump in the United States, the election of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and the increasing ‘Presidentialization’ of Parliamentary models of governance. While people seek a reply from the policymakers, politicians are eager to blame ‘the elite’, ‘the establishment’, or ‘suit-boot waaley’ in the Indian context, except there is no clear idea who these people are. (I am sure we will end up blaming the ‘Illuminati’ for the mess by 2025, eagerly waiting for the conspiracy theories, comment what you think). The result is simple, voters end up blaming abstract concepts like ‘the global elite’ for the global politico-economic decline and polarize among themselves instead of demanding reforms and holding the policymakers accountable.
Reformation
It does not need an expert to understand that the present system needs to be reformed and cleansed. The onus of political reformation for transparency and accountability lies on the citizens and voters through their franchise but more importantly, it is simply more necessary to quit the polarization drive filled with modern conspiracy theories and stop ‘blaming the elite’ because it does not exist. Power and influence greatly vary across the world and local or regional ‘elites’ exist in every country but, an ‘omnipotent global elite’ simply does not exist, I could even go to the extent of saying that it is a distraction from the real problem. There is no evidence to support or confirm the assumption of this kind of an ‘elite’ or its modus operandi.
In 2020, we have only one elite, big money pouring into elections. Elections are the ultimate foundation that legitimizes the governments in democratic states. Elections are crucial because they remind all institutions from the people to the companies to the bureaucracy that, people are the real sovereign, and no one can overrule the people.
So, to save the economy and civil liberties, save elections from the cynical influence of big money. The road to economic reconstruction in the 2020s lies through political (or actually, electoral) reforms.
It is cliché to say, ‘the economy must work for the many’ and immaterial when policies are framed by those who are dependent on ‘the few’. The coronavirus economic shock has provided a valuable opportunity across the world to demand changes, curbing re-democratising our elections should be the topmost priority. After all, everything boils down to elections.
Comments