Indian democracy? What a good idea

When asked about Western civilisation, Mahatma Gandhi sardonically replied, “I think it would be a good idea”. If he were around today to ask the same question about Indian democracy, I think his answer would be much the same. Indian democracy? What a very good idea.

The rise of the Indian economy – alongside that of China – is purportedly a threat to Western hegemony. Unlike China, however, India is ostensibly a democracy.

According to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, democracy is government “of the people, by the people and for the people” – but the definition of “people” has changed throughout time. In Ancient Greece – the bastion of direct democracy – the franchise was restricted to male landowners whilst, in the UK, women didn’t get voting equality with men until 1928.

In India, despite full suffrage, government is certainly not for the majority of the people. Testimony to its growing economic power, only the United States, China and Russia have more billionaires than India.  Conversely, 80% of India’s population lives on less than $2 per day  and, according to a report by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 8 Indian states have more poor than the poorest 26 African nations combined.  Nearly half of India’s children are malnourished  and, following the worldwide recession, a further 100 million people were plunged into poverty.  The rise of India as an economic powerhouse has been meteoric, but its growth – in terms of socio-economic groups, regions and rural/urban areas – has been uneven and has encouraged gross inequality.

India’s Undemocratic Credentials

A key indicator of Indian’s undemocratic credentials is the composition of its parliament. According to Patrick French, author of India: A Portrait, political influence in India is hereditary and “the principle of nepotism, of politics as a family business, is now more deeply entrenched than at any point since independence”.

Last year, French did a study of India’s lower house, the Lok Sabha, and discovered that the younger the politician, the more likely they were to have “inherited” their position: 

Nearly half of all MPs aged 50 or under are hereditary, selected to contest a seat primarily because they are the children of senior politicians. No MP over the age of 80 is hereditary; every MP under the age of 30 is hereditary

As well as political parties becoming family fiefdoms, nearly all MPs are millionaires or billionaires. This situation creates a crisis of representation and further erodes the legitimacy of India’s democratic institutions. Politicians are drawn from an increasingly narrow economic elite and this disenfranchises the vast majority of Indians outside the political and economic aristocracy. 

Indian political life is permeated with widespread corruption which further undermines confidence in the political establishment. In April this year, senior politician Suresh Kalmadi was arrested on charges of embezzling millions in the run up to last year’s Commonwealth Games whilst former communications minister Andimuthu Raja stands accused of defrauding the national treasury of $40bn.  Corruption – like the prevalence of hereditary elites in parliament – is the symptom of a society where inequality reigns supreme.

Democracy and the Caste System

A key cause of ongoing inequality and its threat to democracy is the continuation of the caste system. K. M. Panikkar, in his 1933 essay Caste and Democracy, characterised the caste system as the “perpetuation of class predominance” as the priesthood sought to preserve their power by subjugating the lower castes.

Panikkar believed the caste system was underpinned by three core pillars: “inequality based on birth, gradation of professions and their inequality, and the restrictions on marriage outside one’s own sub-group”.  It survived because it withstood various challenges – including the rise of Buddhism and Islam – by evolving and adapting. As Panikkar described it, “caste is social Imperialism, perfected by experience and maintained by religious sanction”.

Panikkar anticipated the withering away of caste with the advent of democracy. “Since caste and democracy are opposed in ideals, contrary in methods and fundamentally different in results, they cannot co-exist in any conceivable set of circumstances ...  the caste system is bound to break in the mere attempt of the society to adjust itself to democratic ideals”

Yet the caste system and democracy continue to prevail in tandem. According to Rikke Nohrlind, Coordinator of the International Dalit Solidarity Network: 

The caste system may be outlawed in India, but legislation is poorly implemented, and the country’s 200 million Dalits – formerly known as ‘untouchables’ – continue to suffer appalling forms of discrimination. Murder, rape and other crimes against them are mostly committed with impunity, while many Dalits experience forced prostitution and other forms of modern slavery   

Affirmative action – including introducing quotas for government jobs, parliamentary seats and university admissions – has been employed in an attempt to uplift the social standing of Dalits and ensure they obtain proportionate access and political representation. In a society where the caste system is outlawed, however, positive discrimination can be counter-productive and further entrench group divisions whilst fostering resentment from outsiders. Moreover, whilst the underlining causes of social and economic inequality go untreated, any changes will be only cosmetic. Therefore, the adoption of affirmative action can be seen as part of a narrative of selective concessions relinquished by India’s ruling classes to perpetuate their control.

A further example of this is the myth of social mobility as a democratising and levelling tool. The example of Mayawati – leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party and chief minister of Uttar Pradesh – is often cited to demonstrate the equality of opportunity in India. Mayawati was one of nine children born into a family of Dalits in Delhi – but now she is one of the richest women in India and, according to Patrick French, “represents a grass-roots, democratic revolution”.  

Although it does represent a challenge to the fatalistic philosophy of Karma embodied in the caste system, social mobility is still based on a system of winners and losers and the idea of social mobility – so loved by liberal progressives in the West – is another way of reinforcing power structures. It is a tacit acceptance of inequality and hierarchy as people can only migrate up the class system if others remain exploited and downtrodden. Furthermore, as Wilkinson and Pickett demonstrate in The Spirit Level, social mobility is stunted in countries – like India – with profound wealth inequality. Hence, the idea of social mobility – by co-opting members of the lower classes into the ruling class to create a semblance of access – further entrenches exploitation and inequality. 

In his 1956 article Prospects of Democracy in India, Dalit activist B. R. Ambedkar stated that “the existence of the Caste System is a standing denial of the existence ... of democracy”. He argued that, “Stratification is stunting the growth of the individual and deliberate stunting is a deliberate denial of democracy”.  Over 60 years since British colonialists left India, and the country is still riddled with deep, ingrained inequality and struggles under the yoke of elite rule. The growth of the middle-class since India became a free nation in 1947 has been spectacular – but this acts to obfuscate the real issues because, under democracy, traditional structures of exploitation have been combined or replaced with more subtle methods.

Social mobility and affirmative action create the illusion that democracy is working towards equality and the abolition of the caste system. In reality, it means the structures of oppression – because they are not overtly based on birth, marriage or occupation – are more sophisticated and therefore more powerful. The esteem in which we hold democracy creates an impression of authority and legitimacy which justifies ongoing injustice. As poverty continues to devour rural India whilst wealth and influence is concentrated in the hands of a select few, it is clear that this ‘democracy’ is still marred by brutal social imperialism.

Christmas is the time for giving

I’ve been commuting to London from Brighton since just before last Christmas. At this time of year – as coldness descends and darkness swallows every waking hour – delays, cancellations and unforeseen train mishaps become ever more frequent. Trains break down, frost freezes tracks and – as the festive season looms on the horizon – suicides increase. The whole unfortunate rigmarole becomes tedious, repetitive and tiring.

As Christmas approaches, strange creatures dressed in bright floppy hats garnished with shiny bells encroach from the dark and begin to occupy stations up and down the country. From first thing in the morning to last thing at night, flocks of carol singers ensconce themselves by ticket barriers or by platform edge. Their tuneful wails cut through the crisp air as they huddle together for warmth. Outriders patrol the perimeter of the pack shaking giant buckets adorned with images of their charitable master: Help For Heroes, the Salvation Army, or some local church.

Carol singers can smell a fiver – hidden deep in a leathery wallet – at fifty paces. Commuters are their prey and coinage is their bounty. You pull your scarf tight round your neck as a scout lurches over wearing a fake white beard and grasping his bucket tightly – like a festive harbinger from Middle Earth. “Spare any change sir? Christmas is the time for giving”.

Ignoring the increasing commercialisation of Christmas which suggests that if Christmas is “the time for giving” it’s actually for giving money to corporations and businesses, it’s wrong to suggest there is just one time for being generous. People should be generous all year, not just when they’re made to feel guilty.

But it also ignores a more serious point, that the need for charity is a symptom of a broken system. If people are sleeping rough, it’s because the government has failed to provide for its citizens. If people are dying of starvation in the developing world, it’s because international organisations and supranational bodies have not done enough to create a fair and redistributive system of trade. It is our global system of capitalism which creates inequality and poverty, and as long as this system survives, the problems will continue – no matter how much charity there is or how Big David Cameron’s Society becomes.

Whether guilt, empathy or sympathy drives people to donate, charity can only bring temporary solutions to problems which are universal and inherent. In addition, charity – because it works within a broken system – acts to reinforce systems of control and exploitation because it creates the illusion of dealing with a problem.

This animated video of a lecture by renowned philosopher Slavoj Zizek helps illustrate the argument:

The question of charity is a sensitive issue because it represents a potent mix of emotive power relations. We will only negate the need for charity when there are fundamental changes to our system, but there can’t be fundamental change whilst systems of control – including (arguably) charity – reinforce the system of oppression. As long as this continues there will be pain and suffering.

Understandably, most people would rather give to charity and help alleviate a small amount of suffering than let the horrors continue unabated. As Zizek says, “I’m not against charity in an abstract sense because it’s better than nothing – but let’s be aware that there is an element of hypocrisy”.  It’s a deeply depressing paradox – and a horrible moral dilemma – which testifies to capitalism’s incredible ability to survive. Capitalism – the cockroach of political systems.

Or maybe I need to lighten-up, stop being so curmudgeonly and get into the Christmas spirit. I eagerly await the nocturnal visitation of three spirits to show me the light...

No Way Through: If London Was Occupied by Israel

A fascinating short film about the terrifying difficulties facing Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank. A simple story, but brilliantly produced.

Photos from the march and rally in Brighton

Occupy Brighton camp, Victoria Gardens

Umbrellas used to stop police photographing protestors

 

Click here for more photos.

10 Reasons to Legalise and Regulate Drugs

According to the United Nation’s World Drug Report, more than 180 million people worldwide take illegal drugs. This means over 3% of the global population are criminalised and stigmatised by the “War on Drugs”. A prohibitionist stance alone cannot tackle drug addiction and the associated economic and social consequences. Here a ten compelling reasons why we should legalise and regulate drugs.

Prohibition has failed 

The Wars on Drugs has failed. There has been an increase in violent crime, drug-related trade, street-level dealing and international insecurity. The policy has failed to reduce the availability of drugs, significantly deter people from taking drugs or impact on the profits and activities of underground organisations involved in the illicit drug trade. Governments – whilst squandering billions on counter-productive law-enforcement strategies – have generally failed to offer meaningful treatment and assistance to users and their communities. Prohibition has served to criminalise and marginalise millions of users and this inhibits their efforts to become productive members of society or gain access to employment and housing. As the Economist has argued, “legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem”.  Legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction appropriately because users are not automatically criminalised.  

Regulation reduces crime
Prohibition has led to an increase in violent crime by allowing the illicit drug trade to remain lucrative for dealers, traffickers and producers. The UK government estimates that over 50% of property crime is committed by drug-users – but prohibition artificially inflates prices so legalisation would reduce costs and consumers would no longer have to steal to fund their habits. 

According to The Transform Drugs Policy Foundation (Transform), the legalisation and regulationof the drugs market would lead to “a dramatic reduction in crime at all levels from international organised crime to shoplifting”.  Gang violence and gun crime would reduce because “the largest single profit opportunity for organised crime would be greatly diminished”.  Legalisation would immediately remove a significant source of funding to gangs, criminals and corrupt regimes.

Legalisation does not increase the number of users
Evidence suggests that there is no correlation between the stringency of drugs laws and the frequency of drug-taking. According to 2001 figures, in the United States – which has harsh drug laws – over 36% of the adult population had used marijuana, whilst in the Netherlands – where cannabis is legal in licensed premises – the figure was only 17%. 

Increased taxation and investment in treatment, education and social spending
In 1989, Forbes magazine listed Colombian cocaine dealer Pablo Escobar as the seventh richest man on earth. According to the United Nations, international drug trade is worth $400 - $500 billion per year. A study by the University of York estimates the total cost of Class A drugs in England and Wales – including the cost of crime and direct government spending, unemployment benefit, legal costs, health expenditure and social services – as £15.4 billion per annum.  The money raised through the tax and regulation of drug trade – plus the billions saved on law-enforcement – could be used to educate people about the dangers of drug-taking, fund treatment and invest in social programmes, job creation and housing. 

Dangers of inconsistent potency and adulterants
Drugs are often cut with additives such as glass, brick dust and talcum powder to increase the amount of product and maximise profit. The result is that purity and strength varies greatly making it difficult to determine a dosage. According to the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths, 4/5 of the 2,182 drug-related deaths in 2009 were a result of accidental overdose.  Government cannot monitor the cultivation, harvesting and distribution of products which are manufactured illegally, but legalisation would allow robust regulation and quality control mechanisms to ensure the safety of the product consumed.

Lack of education and support increases risk to public health 

Outside Sub-Saharan Africa, the injection of illicit drugs accounts for approximately one in three new cases of HIV. In Russia, where there are more than 1.8 million intravenous users, 37% are HIV-positive.  Robust information, advice and guidance on the risk of different drugs, safe injecting technique and the proper disposal of needles – along with an increased provision of sterile equipment – could greatly reduce the cost to public safety and allows governments to steer consumers to less harmful drugs.

Low level of risk in comparison to alcohol and tobacco 

Most illegal drugs are safer than alcohol and tobacco. According to the Office for National Statistics, 713 people in England and Wales died of heroin misuse in 2006. The figures for alcohol and tobacco – although a higher number of people consume these substances – were 6,627 and 86,500 respectively.   Last year, Wim van den Brink, Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction at the University of Amsterdam, told the British medical journal, Lancet, “drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit”.  Regulation – as well as controlling advertising and promotion – would increase the availability of sterile equipment and further reduce hazards.

Prohibition cannot keep pace with technological advances 

New synthetic psychoactive substances – or “legal highs” – are being created at the rate of more than one a week and this – facilitated by the internet – is leading to the growth and proliferation of an unregulated recreational drugs market. A case-in-point is mephedrone which enjoyed a surge in popularity before being banned in 2010. According to a report last year by Psychonaut, an EU-funded NGO that monitors drug-use, “in 2009 there were barely a few thousand references for online shops selling mephedrone and after just a few months there are now more than 144,000”. 

Transform believe that the changing dynamics of the drug market means that the government’s strategy of trying to ban each one is unsustainable. Steve Rolles of TDPF told the Guardian that “each time they ban one, another emerges. It seems to show a blindness to the basic market dynamic, effectively creating a void for backstreet chemists to create another product”. 

Drug production increases instability and threatens security  

In drug producer and transit countries – including Afghanistan, Jamaica, Pakistan and various Latin American countries – drug money has fuelled instability, violence and corruption. More than 34,000 people were killed in drug-related violence in Mexico in the four years preceding 2011.  General Barry McCaffrey – former drug tsar under President Clinton – described the situation as a fundamental threat to US national security. Regulation is a prerequisite for a return to stability in producer countries and internationally where the illicit drug trade helps finance and foster international terrorism.

Drugs incite fear and make world’s poor suffer
Every year millions of people in the developing world suffering from cancer or AIDS are denied access to opiates for pain control due to global drug control aimed at non-medical use. According to the New York Times, in Sierra Leone, morphine can only be administered by a pharmacist or doctor – but there are only 100 doctors for every 54,000 people.  As a result, six of the richest countries – the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Britain and Australia – consume nearly 80% of the world’s morphine whilst poorer countries – where 80% of the world’s people live – consume only 6%. International prohibition means doctors fear addicting patients and governments fear drug crime – but a lack of understanding encouraged by sensationalism means the world’s poor suffer in pain. 

Conclusion
Legalisation should not be seen as endorsement that all drugs are safe. Instead, it is an opportunity to provide objective and profession information and guidance on drugs. Due to its association with crime, the idea of legalising drugs has become taboo – but now is the time to take a global perspective and consider policy renewal and the adoption of legalisation and regulation.

A version of this article was published in Tribune magazine

UN rejects US blockade of Cuba

For the 20th consecutive year the United Nations has resoundingly rejected the United States' illegal and unjust economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba.
 

This afternoon the UN General Assembly supported resolution A/66/L4 which calls for the end of the blockade. 186 countries voted for the resolution with only two countries – America and Israel – supporting a continuation of the policy. 
 

Countries from across the world – from China to Mexico and from Algeria to South Africa – queued up to lend their political and diplomatic support to Cuba in the debate over the non-binding resolution. The representative from Uruguay noted that “we have witnessed an increase in the restrictions on Cuba’s transactions with third countries” and the blockade is “counter to the principles of justice and human rights, hampers and delays development and seriously harms the Cuban economy”.

As the Indian representative declared, the extraterritorial application of the embargo combined with the denial of access to the US market, acts to greatly and unfairly increase the cost of Cuba’s imports.

The delegate from Bolivia – referencing President John F Kennedy’s “ich bin ein Berliner” quote – said the slogan of our time should be “I am a Cuban” as the Cuban people remain an “inspiration and example” to the rest of the world. He continued, “if we truly believe in democracy then we must listen to the countries in this room”

Venezuela sent a message of support and solidarity to the Miami 5 and appealed to the United States for their release and the return of Rene Gonzalez to his homeland.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said that the sanctions have caused direct economic damages of close to $1 trillion to the Cuban people and that President Obama had done little to change this.

"Despite the false image of flexibility that the current U.S. administration intends to portray, the blockade and the sanctions remain intact," Rodriguez told the assembly.

"Why doesn't President Obama's administration take care of the U.S. problems and leave us Cubans alone to solve ours in peace?"

The blockade of Cuba was imposed on 7 February 1962 and next year marks its 50th anniversary. It remains an anachronistic echo of Cold War politics which has no legal justification. It runs contrary to America's ostensible belief in the supremacy of the free market and is a purely political decision motivated by the threat of the Cuban example which prioritises people over profit and champions free healthcare, education and internationalism.
 

The blockade will only be defeated by solidarity and concerted political will. Anyone interested in fighting against this ongoing injustice should join the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and get involved with their End It Now campaign.

Shake Your Moneymaker, Mr Osborne

"I've got the brains, you've got the looks. Let's make lots of money"

Prior to the World Cup in 1998, the England football squad famously amused themselves by dropping song titles into media interviews. Talismanic centre-half Tony Adams declared “I’m so excited” about the upcoming championship whilst Alan Shearer insisted the team were keeping their feet on the ground and not “dancing on the ceiling”. It was a bunch of rich kids playing a harmless game. And even Alan Shearer was funny.

Fast-forward 13 years and a different bunch of rich kids – the coalition government – are playing a much more dangerous game with our economy. Where Shearer and co. referenced well-known 80s tunes, we now have Osborne et al regurgitating stale references to the "economic mess" the previous Labour government left us in. And whilst England's japes earned them a few quid in bets with teammates, the coalition's financial tomfoolery is going to cost us all dearly. The only 80s throw-back being cited now is Maggie Thatcher. 

Re-worded, re-packaged and repeated ad infinitum, the phrase has prefixed Conservative and Lib Dem responses to every question since the formation of the coalition:

"How many slices of toast for breakfast, George?" asks Mrs Osborne.

"Two please – although if it wasn't for the economic mess Labour left us with, I could probably afford to have three ... and make sure you serve them on our Ming Dynasty plates," replies our humble Chancellor.

We have been pummelled into merciless submission and bitter acceptance through its endless repetition. It has allowed the government to force through ruthless cuts by sidelining Labour and marginalising economic alternatives.  

However – although it is a powerful political weapon to relentlessly demonise Labour's economic record – it is also a double-edged sword. It does indeed damage Labour's credibility, but it also creates a culture of gloom and cynicism that undermines consumer and business confidence. The irony is that – whilst the economy under the Con-Dems flat lines – Labour’s more interventionist policy saved us from depression and sowed the seeds of growth through positive action and investment.

According to Ernst & Young Item Club, our recovery has slowed and our economy has "stalled at a dangerous junction". The simple reason for this stagnation is that – because government economic chauvinism has engendered low confidence – banks are not lending and people are not spending. Furthermore, draconian austerity and rising unemployment further erodes confidence.

As David Blanchflower, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, states in an open letter to George Osborne: 

It hasn't helped that you have described the economy as "bankrupt" when clearly it was not, and also compared the British economy with that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are locked in monetary union, do not have their own central bank and cannot depreciate their currency or engage in credit easing. With such unpatriotic talk, you and other coalition leaders have caused business and consumer confidence... to collapse. They are at frighteningly low levels and I suspect they will fall a lot further unless you act quickly. 

Negative rhetoric is essential to force through ideological cuts to public services and welfare provision, but by constantly talking-down the economy, the government has undermined our chances of recovery. The economy requires positive language and action to flourish. From cutting VAT, payroll tax-breaks, bringing back the Future Jobs Fund, linking corporation tax to unemployment or introducing a Robin Hood Tax and Tobin Tax, there are numerous policies which would increase employment and stimulate growth.

If economics – like football – is a game of two halves, then now is the time for some inspirational half-time words and positive substitutions from the gaffer. The coalition might be committing economic suicide, but with unprecedented and irreversible public sector cuts, they’ll go down in history as hard-nosed neo-liberal martyrs.