BREXIT, a lesson the world should learn

“BREXIT” a lesson that world should learn.

The verdict of the people of United Kingdom to exit the 43 years long membership of European Union sent a shock waves across Europe and even across the world.  The Government of David Cameron was taken by surprise.  He resigned from his post of Prime Ministership. The majority of the parliamentarians of United Kingdom were disappointed by the verdict.  Jeremy Corbin, leader of the Labour Party faced criticism and the MPs of the Labour Party expressed their lack of confidence in the leadership of Jeremy Corby.

 It is clear that the members of the British parliament were not in tune with the life struggle of the majority of the people.  It has been stated that the majority of the people who voted in favour of exit were middle class, working and rural population.  Some argued that the people who voted in favour of exit did not understand the wider issues and benefits of the EU.  This is a false argument.  At best this argument shows no respect for the wishes and votes of the people.  These are the very people who elect their representatives to the British parliament.   Whatever dreams that EU had presented to the people did not reflect the aspiration of the majority of the people of United Kingdom.  They did not befit from EU.  For sizable population of UK EU did not mean a thing.

The conservative Government of David Cameron did not show much commitment to social welfare character of the state.  Their commitment to neo liberal policies was far too strong.  This approach of the conservative government was well suited to the policies of the EU.  These policies have given rise to the hardships of the common people.  The common people found it difficult to live under increasing unemployment, inequality and poverty.   The conservative government had diminished the Welfare State, especially in the National Health Service.

“A documentary on BBC Panorama about people who voted to leave and their reasons cite that
Unemployment, poverty and inequality were the main reasons because of which the people voted to leave. Immigration was another important and common reason for the people to vote to leave. They argue, the volume of immigration into Britain is too much which puts a strain on public services like health and education. Children aren't getting admissions to schools and people are not getting appointments with doctors. Immigrants also tend to work for lesser pay hence undercutting British workers. British people aren't being given priority for housing/housing benefits compared to immigrants.

Some said they wanted "their community/country back". Again this has some connection with immigration. As the volume of immigrants is high, the concept of society seems to have vanished.

Some businesses have also expressed concern with the amount of red tape that exists if they want to be part of the common market. They hope that leaving EU will mean getting back some control of Britain for the common British people.”

According to some report UK had benefitted a lot after joining EU.  Its GDP has increased by 10%.  UK was on par with Germany and US in the rising GDP.  In return it had to spend very little amount for the cost to be part of EU.  If this is true then the only people who benefitted from being part of EU are the corporate houses, big business and upper class.  The benefits of the EU membership did not go down to the salaried and rural masses. 

Way back in 1980ies many common people in different parts of rural Europe were suffering under the neo liberal policies of EU. In 1983 I had gone to Holland.  During this visit we had an opportunity of attending several meetings of the collectives of farmers in northern part of Holland.  I was surprised to hear them complaining against EU.  They said they were badly affected by EU and the process of restructuring their economy, commonly known as structural adjustment.

If any of the member country of EU faced financial crisis and need to borrow form IMF or European Central bank the loans came with very stringent conditions called “Free Market Reforms”. These conditions included cut in the government spending on social welfare programmes, especially retirement pension and health insurance; cut in household spending; labour reforms, wage cuts and reduction in the rights of the workers; privatization of public assets.

The manner in which nations after nations carry out labour reforms to maximize profit, invite foreign investments indicates that neither the labour nor the labourers receive any consideration.  Capital will not exist without labour.  Labour and capital are two inseparable parts of capitalism as a social and economic system.

Brexit is a strong comment on globalization.  It proves what David M Smick had written some time ago, “Today the future of globalization is politically unpredictable, fundamentally because the base of financial capital ownership is so small.  Meanwhile, the wealth gap is widening.  As a result, globalization’s political base of support remains tenuous at best.  Here is one astonishing statistic that makes the point: Today 40% of Americans do not have adequate liquid saving to live at the poverty level for three months, according to New York University’s Edward N. Wolf.  For a family of four, living at that level for that amount of time would require $ 5,300 in saving.” (David M. Smick, The World is Curved)

European Parliament and the People:

When people are ruled by the national government directly elected by them this government is accountable to the people.  The people can throw away the government whose policies go against the wishes and welfare of the people in the following election.

When it comes to the apex government like European Parliament which involves many other countries this government does not look at the aspiration and problems of the people of an individual country.  EU and the people of a member countries are placed at a great distance.  EU parliament is not directly answerable or accountable to the people.  The decisions made by EU may not immediately reflect the wishes and desires of the people.  Nor do the protests and opposition by the people to the decision made by EU have any impact on the European Parliament.

However, the laws made by the EU parliament will directly affect the people of the member countries.   These people will not be able to oppose or even question EU parliament as it is remotely placed.   Remote the government is from the people there are more chances that this government will make policies that will be beneficial the ruling classes.  This government will be guided by the macro level issues which often represent the interests of the big business and corporate houses of these states.  The hardship of the people will not be in the consideration of such government.  The European Parliament may work for the health of the economy.  But the health of the economy is measured by the health of the owners of capital.  The social welfare, employment, health care, pension will not constitute indicators to measure the health of EU.

In this sense EU does not stand for the general interests of the people of the member countries.  EU is almost like an association of corporate houses and big businesses that imposes its will on the people of member countries.  In many cases the sovereignty of the member countries will be compromised by the ruling of the EU Parliament.  To give an example, the World Trade Organization’s rules will not allow the member countries’ laws to function.  The patent laws made by the sovereign nation will be not be acceptable if these go against the laws of WTO.   The member country will have to amend its laws to suite the laws made by the WTO.  In similar manner the member countries laws and policies will have to be suitably amended to make them qualify ‘to be members of EU.

In case of Greece it had become evident how the EU overruled the vote of the people of Greece.  61% of the people of Greece had voted against austerity measures imposed on the country by EU.

With all the so called cooperation between the member countries of EU they could not prevent or even predict economic crisis on 2007 – 2008.  EU was part and parcel of the causes for the crisis of 2007 – 08.  These crises affected most the advanced countries like US, the members of EU.  The big business, corporate houses and financial institution can be bailed out by the states.  But the common people continue to suffer from these crises even today.

EU is no redeemer of weaker members.  It gives its members access to the common market.  There is a freedom of movement of labour.  But it does not reach out its hand to save the drowning members.  At worst the drowning members are made to drown more.  If any member nation does not abide by the policies of EU this nation is brought on the board and chastised resulting in hardship for the citizens.

If the common people from a strong member of EU, like UK, experienced hardship and voted themselves out of EU then what would be case of smaller economies?

Many have expressed that Brexit is a disastrous development.  If one would agree with these sentiments, then he/she should examine why EU has not helped the common people to improve their lives.  After UK voted to come out there was anger among the EU parliamentarians.  Some of the members of the EU Parliament, particularly from France demanded that UK should quickly complete the exit procedure.  It was evident that some members had no respect for the will of the people of UK.  Greece was unable to extricate itself from the octopus like EU and had to succumb to its pressure.

Let me quote here what I had written in the Indian Currents 27 July – 02 August 2015.

Socialist approach to the International Relations -- CMEA:

There was an institution in place among the socialist countries (socialist block). The name of this institution was “CONFERENCE FOR MUTUAL ECONOMIC AID”.

Under SOVIET UNION the option of a socialist world market was developed which should function as an alternative to the capitalist world market, providing new and better rules for international relations, banning exploitation and uneven development. The socialist world market was primarily a network of bilateral relations based on barter.

CMEA emphasized on rapid industrialization, which would provide in each of the CMEA member countries a complete industrial base with the same priority industries being developed at a faster rate in each of them.  This autarkic development policy was made possible by Soviet deliveries of energy and raw material.  The Soviet Union, GDR and Czechoslovakian provided the less developed CMEA countries with machinery. (Hans van Zon, Crisis in the Socialist International Economy)  Even India has benefitted from the Soviet Union investment in public sector industries.  USSR offered this without repatriating any proceeds from these industries by way of profits.

EU is far from such a spirit of cooperation and mutual aid.  The future of EU lies in learning lessons from CMEA.

On Education: Objectives

1.       “Access to knowledge: knowledge is widely available.

2.       Knowledge concept: teaching institutions.

3.       Knowledge creation: by those work in science, humanities

4.       Knowledge application: making knowledge practical and useful.

5.       Knowledge service: e-governance. People, citizens’ interaction with the government. Information and communication technology.

The best brains in the world are busy solving the problems of the rich –who actually don’t have real problem to solve. As a result the problems of the poor don’tget the right kind of attention, or the right talent to help them get through it.

Bringing the poor into the main stream meant making the nation's government inclusive, open and transparent. It meant providing information to everyone. (Sam Petroda)

II

Innovation:

Innovation involves thinking differently, creatively and insightfully to have an impact on social, economic values and development.

Innovation that can offer solution to the existing problems where conventional approaches have failed to deliver results.

Five most important things that matter in innovation:

1)       We need to look at innovation as a platform. Innovation is required in products, process, policies, plans and programmes. Innovation is about changing mind sets, organisations business management models, distribution, delivery and many more.

2)       Secondly inclusivity. Our job was not to create more millionaires, it was to lift millions of people out of poverty. Let us focus on innovation for the bottom of economic pyramid.

3)       Innovations happen in an ecosystem that fosters it.

4)       We want to properly define some of the elements of sustainable, affordable innovations. We want innovation in products that are durable rather than disposable.

5)       We have to consider the possibility of discourse. We need to create nation wide conversation on innovation. WE need to question the status quo and inject that habit of creative thought into the national psyche.”

Sam Pitroda

On Education: Objectives

·           To make young people to base their lives on solid moral principles.

·           Inculcating a vision for life.

·           Inculcating a vision for the society.

·           Individualism versus a collective. Personal aspiration versus collective aspiration. Fulfilling or working for their aspirations versus working for the aspiration of the collective.

·           History of people and the nation: To help them to locate themselves in the context of the history of the nation.Understanding the history of which they a part. They are product and they contribute to the history.

·           Making of the nation called India. Study what has made our nation.  How it has traversed through the history of people’s struggle to emerge as civilized human collective.The people, leaders who sacrificed their lives for creating this nation.

·           Valuing the work of the people for emancipation of people who have been disadvantaged, oppressed and marginalized.  Human collective that recognizes the aspiration of these people for equality, equity and justice.  Aspiration for justice for all is more important than aspiration for personal aggrandisement.

·           To make them understand the idea of India. Creating a nation they want to live in.  Democracy is based on historical reality of India and in interaction with global cultur; evolved value based democracy as an environment for all to learn and grow; environment of equal opportunities for all, equal participation and equal access to resources needed for growth of individuals and of human community.

·           Democracy is based on values of secularism; tolerance for people’s ways of life, thinking, faiths, religious beliefs and practices and culture; even more, sharing with people of other cultures to develop composite nation.  There are people belonging to different faiths, religions and persuasions. Making youth understand and appreciate other religions and faiths we will have lessons on all the religions in India.

·           Promoting dialogue, exchange and cross fertilization of religious ideals, values and ethos.  Study of all religious philosophies.

·           Looking at the nation in the context of the global scenario.

·           Value of democracy, socialism, secularism, tolerance, respecting diversity, living with differences.

·           Art, culture, music, religious heritage, history and philosophy.

·           Emphasis on learning English:  without English the rural youth will lag behind.  It will put them on the path of progress.

·           Study science with temper of philosophy; And study humanity with temper of science.

·           Create economic system that will be free from exploitation and bring about egalitarian society.

·           Study political science and politics that is value based, participatory democracy and governance.

Methodology:

·         Seminar and workshop approach and emphasis on Peer learning.

·         Learning to learn: Developing capacity to learn is more important goal of education than accumulating information and knowledge.

·         Developing the capacity to learn:  Empowering a person, making a person self reliant; to understand, comprehend issues, challenges facing a person, community; to search and find solutions.

·         Searching and researching. Exposure and social involvement.

·         Learning to think and problem solving.

·         Learning from one's experience.

·         Breaking out of moulds, thinking out of box.

·         Exposure to the world outside one's own.

·         Walking back in the history. Reading, writing.

Practical organisation:

o   Position ourselves in one place (village) where the school centre will be located. From there reach out to at least five village schools.

 

MGNREGA and Neo-liberal thinkers

Only the Neo Liberals argue MGNTEGA will not save the poor!

“Do no bet on MGNREGA to save the poor”.  Mr. Swaminathan has given us an eagle’s point of view of MGNREGA, full of big names and overwhelming statistics. But at a closer look he has tried to shoot in the dark by relying on ambiguous information.  I hope he is not deliberately trying to discredit the positive changes brought about by MGNREGA.   

Mr. Swaminathan suggests making tar roads have long term impact, and not mud roads, building embankment or de-silting tanks.  He gives the example of Bihar where double the amount spent on PMGSY.  In Bihar and for that matter in any other place when capital intensive rural spending is done it will definitely double the spending in comparison to spending on MGNREGA.  Under MGNREGA 60% is spent on wages which directly goes into the hands of the wage seeker.  But capital intensive spending will involve much higher spending on equipments and material compared to wages.  Here great proportion of spending will go into the hands of the material and machine owners and less in the hands of the wage seekers. Tar roads improve geography of rural areas but it does not speak of removing poverty of the wage seekers. Building embankments and desilting tanks improves water availability. Will he say that reduction of poverty in Bihar is because there was no MGNREGA?

Rural poverty is of the small, marginal farmers, landless labourers, dalits adivasies and women.  Capital investment goes to the people who have large tracks of land.  It does not benefit the small, marginal farmers and landless labourers. They will continue to remain wage labourers. Capital investment in agriculture (pump sets, tractors, and improved irrigation systems) benefitting the landlords, reduced employment in agriculture to less than 120 days a year.

He claims though Narasimha Rao introduced 100 workdays in 1994 and increased rural employment from 875 million person days to 1232 million and yet Congress was thrashed in the 1996 election. Clearly, voters didn’t think it solved poverty.  But he failed to mention that Congress won in 2009 because of right to work given by NREGA.

To relate the defeat of Congress in 1996 to non recognition of NREGS is trying to deliberately discredit the MGNREGA of 2005.  If congress was defeated it was due to devastating effect on the people of the structural adjustment policy adopted  Liberalization and privatization has led to closing down of innumerable small scale industries. The dismantling of the public sector, HMT, ITI, BEL, has led to innumerable people into unemployment.  Government has offered golden hand shake to force voluntary retirement scheme. NREGS was a safety net to prevent the poor from further falling into poverty and starvation. Growth is not directed to the agriculture sector.  On the contrary land acquisition for mega projects, destruction of forests, and displacement of rural population has very negative impact on the poor.

When NDA government was pushing reforms vigorously it was thrown out of power.  When Manmohan Singh came to power he started speaking about inclusive growth to overcome the scars of vigorous reform which had excluded the rural masses and the poor.

He claims that after 2008 rural wages more than doubled.  But he wants to attribute this to some extraneous factors.  We on the field have seen from a very close distance that when NREGA was paying higher wages and equal wages to women than the landlords who were paying much below minimum wages the NREGA made the rural labourers demand higher wages from the rich farmers.

Food prices rising globally might have raised wages only because under MGNREGA minimum wages were higher than the wages the landlords paid.  MGNREGA strengthened the fight of the agricultural labourers for better wages. Rise in food prices did not result in equal wages for men and women.  It is the NREGA equal wages for men and women made women to demand equal wages.  MGNREGA has given more money in the hands of the rural poor and their health, nutrition, children’s education has improved.

“MGNREGA is only palliative; it will prevent them from starvation”.  But the present growth oriented economy is putting all the propertiless in the urban and rural areas on palliative care.  The difference between the urban wage seekers and the rural wage seekers under MGNREGA is that the rural wage seekers will demand work as a matter of their right to work.  Of course these finer points Swaminathan will not understand.

Further he must also acknowledge that when the poor have rights to work, health care, education, food security, housing that their needs will be attended to.  In a capitalist society the poverty is not solved by the growth in the economy. 

GDP growth has attracted better off of rural population with education rather than unskilled labourers.  The National Sample Survey organization has come out with facts which show that the unemployment rate in the urban area between 2004-2005 and 2011-2012 has come down.  But in the rural areas the unemployment rate has remained the same.

MGNREGA has brought changes in the conditions of the people not in term of owning capital and accumulation of wealth but it has made rural poor get united and fight for their rights.  They now think that they have rights in the society and the government should ensure that they rights are delivered to them. MGNREGA has given more money in the hands of the rural poor. Their nutrition and health has improved. The fact that the children of the rural poor have access to education as their parents need not migrate periodically from one place to another is an important factor that will contribute to the sustainable change.

The capitalist society which spear heads for growth will essentially result in economic and social inequality in the society.  Growth and accumulation will result in concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.  It will create a few multi billionaires leaving the large majority of the population property less having to depend on wage labour.  It is only the struggles for rights that will keep the property less people afloat.  In the capitalist society people cannot fight for a share in the capital of the capitalist.   But they can fight for their rights enshrined in the constitution.  They can demand for right to health, right to food, education, and housing. 

Swaminathan’s last statement speaks for itself.  He holds a view that MGNREGA is palliative and sustainable poverty reduction required capital intensive rural investment. “Today I make bold to claim victory”.  We get an impression that he has already taken a stand against MGNREGA and he goes about searching for arguments to defend his stand.  He calls MGNREGA palliative, but he does not say a word about what he means by capital intensive rural investment.

If Swaminathan had boldly stated that the rural people should be made owners of capital, land, irrigation, access to credit and market which would reduce their poverty then his view would be credible.  But he would argue for growth that would deprive the rural poor of capital and turn them into wage labourers, not in MGNREGA but in the toll plaza, in the urban industries, working under contractors with no right to be organized or fight for better wages. 

 Alex Tuscano, Ganesh Iyer, and N.S.Bedi 

Euro Zone Has Let Down Greece

Euro Zone Has Let Down Greece

In Economic Times there was a short article which was trying to draw lessons from Greece crisis.  The gist of the message was “Do not live on borrowed money”.  It gave examples of how some people hold several credit cards and pay dues of one credit card through another credit card; or pay their emi through credit cards; or those who pay only minimum amount.  These people finally land up is a debt trap which goes round their neck with no means to get out.

I think the general view of people would be that Greece lived beyond their means on borrowed money.  To think of Greece in this manner would be most unfair to this nation and would mean we do not want to see the truth of how EURO ZONE functions and what happens to the countries whose economies are weak.  Not all the members of Euro Zone are anywhere near the Economy of Germany, France and Netherlands.  It is a common knowledge that Spain, Italy and Greece are their weak members.  These nations cannot be held responsible for their weakness.

When Greece joined Euro Zone in January 2001 the global economy was apparently healthy.  The upswing economy started moving their capital to the periphery of the global system to exploit the weakness of the periphery nations.  Greece being on the periphery of the advanced capitalist countries capital was flowing into Greece.  At one time the economy of Greece grew at 4.3% while the average growth of Euro Zone economies was 3.1%.  This growth has not spurred by the organic development of the home economy.  It was sparked by the investments from outside.

The impact of 2007 – 2008 global economic crises was experienced by all the economies of the Euro Zone countries.  During this period of crisis foreign investments started moving out of Greece.  As a result Greece began to go through economic depression.  The GDP of Greece fell by 27 %.  The unemployment went up to 25 %.  60% of the youth did not have jobs.  Greece’s export dipped and they had to depend on borrowing.  Their debt reached to the point of 180% of their GDP.  This is a natural consequence of the global economy.  It brings all nations into one market.  But it throws them back at different uneven levels.  The global economy essentially has some nations at its centre and some at the periphery.  Precisely this unevenness supports the very existence of the centre.  When the great depression like the one spurred by the Wall Street Meltdown would have most devastating effects on the economies at the periphery.  Only those nations which have relatively strong independence and regulations will not experience such effects.  Euro Zone had done away with all regulations the member countries could exercise. In the atmosphere of loss of control on its policies Greece had been extremely vulnerable to the impact of global crisis. 

During the period of deep crisis (from 2009) Greece had borrowed from the creditors like Germany and from IMF under very stringent conditions.  All the three institutions, IMF, ECB (European Central Bank) and EC (European Commission) had imposed what is called “Free Market Reforms”.  IMF has a single medicine for all nations who are in financial crisis.  And this medicine makes sure that these countries never ever recover.

The free market reforms were called austerity measures and they included:

1.       Cut on the government spending on social welfare programmes, especially retirement pension and health insurance.  

2.       Cut on the household spending.

3.       Labour reforms, wages get cuts and the rights of the workers getting reduced,.

4.       Privatization of public assets held by the government.

These reforms had affected the lives of the middle class and lower classes very adversely.  High unemployment and 60% youth not employed had brought the families to the edge.  Now the wage cut meant they had to live without their basic necessities being met.  We could see the senior citizens suffering because their pensions were cut and whatever little they got it was so irregular.  Labour reform might have given boost to production and profitability because of low wages.  But it had backfired as the people did not have purchasing power to buy goods and services produced.

The sale of public government assets paralyzed the government from delivering social welfare measures to the people.  The sale of these assets brought to the treasury paltry little sum which was horribly inadequate to pay back the loans.  It led the private interest to benefit from this sale, as they got the public assets almost for a song.

Free Market Reforms pushed the people and the nation deeper into misery and bankruptcy.  There was a need for another bailout loan to keep the nation afloat.  Since the dues to the creditors were not paid the European Central Bank closed down the banks in Greece for more than two weeks. People already suffering could not draw even little balance they had in the banks.  There was a need for a new bailout but since people were pushed to the edge they did not want austerity measures any more.

Loss of faith between Greece and Euro zone:

The left had come to power in Greece on the promise that it would put an end to the austerity measures.  In the referendum the Greece had voted NO to austerity by 61% of majority.  They were tired and miserable.  The closure of banks for two weeks had brought the Greece to a standstill and the people were literally starving.

On the other hand the Greece defaulting payment of loan had made the richer countries, who were the creditors, very angry.  Angela Merkel stated that “the biggest currency that was lost was trust”.  Germany which was the biggest creditor probably thought that their Deutschmark was lost.  

 

Euro Zone is not a charitable organization.  It is a club of economies which were in competition with each other and inherently exploitative. They meant business and nobody was willing to lose even a penny for the sake another country.  The common currency with ECB and independent sovereign states were trying to coexist.  The independence and sovereignty of the states was undermined by the fact that these countries cannot do anything independently to solve their economic crisis. The abnormal situation of Greece is that it has no control on its financial policies. Its authority on financial policy comes from the ECB.  What is worse is that their elected government could be brought down through the manoeuvres of the ECB and EC.  The powerful countries like Germany will have the last say in the matter. 

The situation of Greece is a consequence of natural functioning of capitalism.  Euro Zone had reduced Greece to penury.    It had become evident that the IMF, ECB and EC (TROIKA) had no desire to understand the problems of Greece, leave alone wanting to help to solve their problem.  The fact that Greece has a leftist government would be another irritant in the minds of the leaders of Euro Zone. They would push Greece to the wall and draw maximum benefit from the situation.  Because of the unfortunate situation of Greece the creditors were gaining.  By giving them loans, they extract interests and reduce Greece as their backyard.  All the loans given to the Greece was going back to the rich members of Euro Zone.

Greece was denied of Dignified Option to overcome its crisis:

Greece wants a breathing space to put its house back on track, to meet the basic needs of the people, to have modest decent life, which they are deprived of since the ongoing of depression.

Under normal conditions a country would have its central bank, like Reserve Bank of India or Federal Reserve of the United States of America.  These central banks are constitutional authorities which enjoy independence of political governments.  These banks play an important role of issuing financial policies, fiscal discipline and liquidity management.  In times of depression the central banks will introduce more liquidity by printing more currency so that the government would have more money at its disposal to spend on social welfare to help tide over the crisis.  When the country’s economy performs better it prints less currency to control inflation.  Greece could not do any of these things.  Though it is a sovereign nation it does not have a central bank to guide its financial policies.  This power rested in the hands of European Central Bank.  This ECB functions for all the members of Euro Zone.  When the economies of Germany and other prosperous members are doing excellent there is no question of ECB issuing policies to help Greece.  The banks in Greece do not come under the control of Greece government, but under the control of ECB.  ECB had left the Greece government incapable of remedying its crisis.

The Real Nature of Euro Zone:

Euro Zone has been founded to consolidate the economic power and consequently the political power vis a vis the United States.  They wanted to throw up a new international currency, which would become alternative to US $.  Euro has become a very powerful currency though it has not occupied the position of US $.  Euro Zone has strengthened the rich members while the weaker members remained behind and they float on the back of Euro. 

Euro Zone does not play the role like Germany played when the East Germany merged with the West Germany.  Over the years the prosperous West Germany helped the weak East Germany to even out with the West Germany.  Euro Zone is not intended to help the weaker member nations to even out their differences. 

Socialist approach to the International Relations -- CMEA:

There was an institution in place among the socialist countries (socialist block). The name of this institution was “CONFERENCE FOR MUTUAL ECONOMIC AID”.

Under SOVIET UNION the option of a socialist world market was developed which should function as an alternative to the capitalist world market, providing new and better rules for international relations, banning exploitation and uneven development. The socialist world market was primarily a net work of bilateral relations based on barter.

CMEA emphasized on rapid industrialization, which would provide in each of the CMEA member countries a complete industrial base with the same priority industries being developed at a faster rate in each of them.  This autarkic development policy was made possible by Soviet deliveries of energy and raw material.  The Soviet Union, GDR and Czechoslovakian provided the less developed CMEA countries with machinery. (Hans van Zon, Crisis in the Socialist International Economy)  Even India has benefitted from the Soviet Union investment in public sector industries.  USSR offered this without repatriating any proceeds from these industries by way of profits.

Euro Zone is far from such a spirit of cooperation and mutual aid.  It has made Greece bleed.  The fate of Greece has many lessons for the weaker members of the Euro Zone.  They will not get any help in times of crises.  Weaker economies being in Euro Zone is like a sparrow trying to fly with a kite.  These signs tell us that the future of Euro Zone may be in question.  Though Greece has taken the bailout by agreeing to the harsh conditions, it should slowly prepare a way out of Euro Zone.  No doubt this step will push Greece back drastically, if Greece wants long term solution to their problem and protect it sovereignty and dignity it should exit Euro Zone.  This is also a warning to other smaller economies which are at the same level as Greece.

In my opinion the smaller countries should come together into an alliance for mutual aid, define their relationship with advanced countries and build themselves in cooperation and collaboration with each other.   SAARC, BRICS like cooperation have a short history ahead.  There are lots of inner political and economic contradictions that will not see these networks through. 

BEGINNING OF NEW ERA FOR THE LEFT?

BEGINNING OF NEW ERA FOR THE LEFT?

Will the Left with the leadership of Sitaram Yechuri make up for their failure towards the poor farmers, worker and all marginalized people of India?

When Aam Aadmi Party first came to power in the state of Delhi and was reducing the rates of electricity and water and showing the way to expose corruption Prakash Karrat, who was then the General Secretary of the CPM party commented, “AAP is doing what we should be doing”.  This may be an admission of the fact that CPM probably does not do what it should be doing. 

Three and odd decades of Left Front government in West Bengal, led by CPM, has vanished.  It is on the receiving end in Kerala. It faced two defeats in succession. Left Front seat share in the Parliament also has come down rapidly.  It is absent in the urban or rural areas where the working class and farmers are facing hardship.  The trade unions in the organized sector have become ineffective.  Much of the organized work force in the industries has been replaced by contractors who employ even professionals on temporary basis with no benefits which workers would get under normal conditions, such as yearly increment, bonus, gratuity etc.  The CPM has not taken any corrective measures to revitalize the trade union movement.

If Prakash Karat is honest in his admission that the left parties are not doing what they are supposed to do, then we should see some changes in the party and its functioning.

In 1989 – 90 when the Soviet Union collapsed and the left was being viewed as spent force, several political commentators considered left to be still relevant in Indian context.  But today we see it declining rapidly.

What had gone wrong with the left?

      

T    The left had got mired in the electoral politics.  Number of seats in the Parliament and power at the states is important to play its political role.  But the political role the Communist Party had envisioned for itself was to deliver socialistic benefits to the masses; to strengthen the working class and peasant movement and to stand for the cause of all the poor and the exploited people.  This politics, the party believed, would bring about transformation in the society and put it on the path of socialism. But the left party gave up its larger role in the social movements and the struggles of the poor, farmers and the working class and got engaged with running the state for the bourgeois class.

·         While it is important to get elected to the Parliament or to the state assemblies the party had to pay a price for this.  The party had to tone down its militancy in order not to antagonize the ruling classes to gain their support and votes during election.  Creating a vote bank within the wealthy class in the long run becomes counterproductive.  After getting elected with the support of the wealthy class the party could not defend the interests of the toiling masses whole heartedly.  When the left opted for running the government for the bourgeois class the party lost its political base among the toiling masses.  Nandigram and Singur are the examples of this. It was stated in the 21^st Congress of the Party, “The party leadership in many states was averse to taking up the problems of the socially oppressed people.  It also stated that there was a serious discrepancy in the social composition of party members, the composition of leaders on the top committees, and proportional representation of women in the top committees.” (“Guarded Hope” Front Line - May15, 2015)

·         “It stated clearly that there was no way to avoid the fact that the electoral setbacks had brought down the party’s political influence and mass base.  It was also pointed out in the resolution that the party had failed to identify urgent and local issues to which people reacted collectively and that it had not organized campaign to mobilize people.”  (“Guarded Hope” Front Line - May15, 2015).  Indeed it an honest admission on the part of the party of their failures.

·          In the rural areas we did not find CPM cadres on the side of the farmers while they were in distress and even committing suicide.  From 1985 the action groups and voluntary organization were fighting to get the government to legislate ‘right to work’ for the rural poor.  The communists were nowhere to support them. CPM claims credit for supporting the legislation of MGNREGA.  But apart from this their cadres have done nothing to ensure that MGNREGA is implemented without corruption.  If the party does not stand by the poor, workers and farmers how can they expect to keep their mass base intact?  When mass base gets eroded automatically there will be electoral set back.

·         Even now the Communist cadres are not found organizing farmers against Modi’s land acquisition bill.

·         “The CPI(M) leadership was compelled to admit intermittently during this period that negative tendencies such as factionalism, individualism, financial irregularities and moral turpitude had become notable feature of the party in various parts of the country.” (“Guarded Hope” Front Line - May15, 2015)

·         The CPM cadres in West Bengal were functioning like parallel police force brutalizing people to force their support for the party.  They were handling the handing over of the government benefits to the people at their will and discretion.

The 21^st Congress of the CPM party has just been concluded.  The communist party’s redeeming culture was “self criticism”.  In the spirit of this principle there has been some introspection within the party during this Congress. The election of Sitaram Yechuri to succeed Prakash Karat to the post of General Secretary of the party could be one sign of the change. 

The 21^st Congress has exuded a great hope of reviving the Party.  All the members of the congress have not only realized their follies and weaknesses but they have also realized that in the present juncture where communalism and neo liberal policies are asserting there is a great need for the Left party like CPM to bring the country on the path of democracy, secularism and socialism.

In this context Sitaram Yechuri becoming general secretary is a very positive development in the CPM.  He considers ‘to be with the cause and purpose of the toiling masses’ is the purpose of his life. He also has a tremendous capacity to relate to all political forces without compromising his principles.  He has decided to strengthen the ‘independent identity of the Communist party’.  He is looking for strengthening Left unity which does not merely mean strengthening alliances with Left parties but also with a large number of Left sympathizers who are associated with the civil society organizations.”  We are looking forward to an era where CPM will shed its sectarian mind set and open itself to recognize the struggle of all sections of the poor which is carried out by the intervention of action groups and voluntary organizations.  Given their conviction and commitment the civil society organizations should be seen as natural allies of the CPM.

There are many civil society organizations who take up issues which go a long way in defending the rights of the poor.  Left forces are not just left parties or what is traditionally known, ‘the sympathizers’ of the left parties.  There are civil society organizations, voluntary organizations and NGOs who have dedicated themselves to fight for the rights of the marginal farmers, unorganized workers, dalits and adivasies with the perspective of bringing about change in the political and economic organization.  Without aligning with these forces the Left cannot strengthen itself both in terms of building mass movement and electoral politics.

What we would like to see is that the Communist party should come up with 21^st century vision for Democracy and Socialism.  It should be done along with all civil society organizations, action groups who are committed to the cause of the toiling masses and for a positive change.

UNITY AMONG RIGHTS-BASED NGOs: NEED OF THE HOUR

UNITY AMONG RIGHTS-BASED NGOs:

 NEED OF THE HOUR

The present government is pushing the poor, particularly the rural poor, to the margin.  The Modi government has reduced the budget allocation for health care and education.  It shows its dislike to MGNREGA, calling it a “living monument” of the previous governments’ failures, condemning millions of impoverished people to survive by ‘digging ditches’.  Modi does not spare precious little time to go deeper to see the reports which speak loud and clear about the magnificent outcome of MGNREGA where ever it is implemented well.

The poor are being edged out from the economic development and the political space.  They are seen as indirect goals of development, as trickle down effects of the economy.  Commenting on trickle down effect Pope Francis says “the present neoliberal economic ideology tells us that at present the glass of development is half full.  When it is completely full it will overflow and then the poor will get the benefits of development.  But as time goes on the glass miraculously become bigger and bigger not allowing it to over flow.”

Marginalization of the poor is accompanied by removing the space of the civil society organization working for the cause of the poor and for the protection of environment.  The government has resorted to stop the flow of funds to the civil society organizations.  There have been more than 9000 NGOs whose FCRA registration has been cancelled.  If any NGO wishes to receive foreign donations they should give an undertaking that their activities will not go against the national interest, national security and development. The Green Peace has been penalised under the excuse that their work is against the national interests of development. 

The government’s view on the national interests, national security and development should be acceptable to all in the civil society.  This is a denial of democratic rights of the people.  The foreign funds that freely flow into the country in the form of foreign investment are per se seen as for the national interests and development.  The foreign funds (investment) that caused Bhopal gas tragedy is not evaluated as against the national security and national interests.  The foreign funds that destroys environment, displaces people from their habitat is not considered as against national interests and security.

In the name of national security the security forces can arrest anyone on suspicion and put his/her in jail without trial.  More 6000 adivasi  youths are languishing in jails for several months and even years without trial.

Civil society is an important component of the socio, economic and political fabric of the society.  Civil society’s independence and freedom of speech is essential component of a democratic society.   Preventing civil society organization from voluntary social action is like obliterating democracy.  The essence of democracy is not just casting vote once in five years to elect the government.  Democracy is civil society participating in the debate on development policies, making development process as relevant to the people. 

In the name of development the state is becoming increasingly repressive.  It is not just the BJP government that is so repressive.  Even the UPA has been equally repressive.  The military, the judiciary has been showing repressive face of the state.  These are no signs of a healthy democracy.

Defending the rights of the poor is a beginning of the defence of the democracy.  Anybody working to defend the civil rights of the society will have to start their struggle with defending the rights of the poor. 

Today the state is governed by the logic of neoliberal capitalist ideology.  It defends the rights of the corporate houses, industrialists and multinational companies.  The country is governed to make it  easy  for them to do their business.   

But when our nation was founded the founding fathers adopted the constitution to guide the governance of our nation.   What should govern our nation is not the logic of neo liberal capitalist ideology but the spirit and letter of the founding document, the constitution of our country. All the politicians take oath on the constitution of India.  They promise to defend, uphold and implement the constitution of India.  This constitution guarantees to its citizens democracy, socialism and secularism.  It gives all its citizens right to life and livelihood, right to work.  It gives its citizens the right to free and compulsory education, health care, and free speech. 

There is a need to bring the goal of the governance and development back to its place.  This is a process of struggle by the civil society and civil society organizations.  This struggle must begin with fighting for the rights of the poor.

Praxis and Young India Project started the struggle for people’s rights.  In 1983 took up land struggles and freeing bonded labours under the bonded labour abolition Act. In 1986 we started our campaign for right to work. In 2005 this was finally legislated.   From the 4th of April 2006 it came into effect and began to be implemented. Our work for the last 35 years has been to enable the poor to gain their rights.

 “APNA : Andhra job scheme :

Andhra Pradesh NGOs alliance has made the Government to work in partnership with NGOs.  This arrangement gave the NGOs the responsibilities of organizing and training MGNREGA workers on their rights and enabling them to access their rights. Today there are 235 NGOs working in 425 out of 625 mandals.  Generally government would be extremely averse to the idea of organizing the people, particularly the working people.  But we have claimed this right.  The government has decided that we organize the rural poor.  In every Panchayat we have organied MGNREGA workers at the Gram Panchayat Samakhyas (GPS). The NGOs of Andhra conduct monthly meetings of Gram Panchayat Samakhyas (GPS)

APNA works for making MGNREGA workers to understand their rights, accessing these rights and improving their quality of life.

When Sridevi, an MGNREGA worker who received 80 days of work from Chinna Kotha Palli Mandal, was asked about the rights she accesses under the MGNREGA Act, she replied, “We don’t allow contractors or machineries to be used for MGNREGA work.  We receive travel when the work is located over 5 Kms away; we have first aid medical kit, drinking water.” Ramakrishnaiah, another MGNREGA worker from CKPalli mandal, who was able to work for 100 days, narrated how MGNREGA has changed the life of his family, “Before we did not have enough work and the wages were low. Now apart from agricultural and other works we have guaranteed 100 days of work at higher wages. We were travelling to distant places to seek work, we don’t do that anymore. Our children are going to high school, we are buying them new clothes, weekly once we are eating meat and we have bought a mobile phone.” We wish that all MGNREGA workers throughout the country could say what these two workers have said.

At a meeting with Commissioner Rural Development (CRD) Andhra, the CRD expressed tremendous satisfaction with the APNA NGOs. As a result it was decided that the wokers’ organizations (GPSs) should be created in all 625 mandals of Andhra.  Through the creation Samakhyas and the work done by NGOs with each GPS, the working poor are able to access all the rights given under the MGNREGA Act. This partnership has helped put Andhra on the map as the best State in implementing MGNREGA, and the only State in which job card holders have been organised into GPSs in order to demand their rights.

Under the APNA the NGOs appoint two Community Resource Persons (CRPs) per Mandal to support the work.  Ramakrishtaiah, the MGNREGA worker from CKPalli mandal, said, “the CRPs, identify the problems of each Shramik Shakti Sanghatana group in the monthly meetings conducted by them and represent our problems to the Assistant Project Officer . We are very happy with them.  We need them to motivate our Samakhya.”

We would like to go a step further through the GPSs formed by NGOs, by making each GPS responsible for enabling the rural poor to access all the pro-poor rights and benefits, such as right to food security, right to education and health care. Furthermore, we are proposing that the salaries of the two mandal workers (CRPs)appointed by the NGO be paid by the right holders. This will also ensure that the NGOs are fully accountable to the working poor.  The majority NGOs support this idea.  We would like to ask the government to pass a Government Order (GO) to officially start the implementation of the new system.                                                                                                                                                                                   

On 30^th and 31^st of May 2015 we had called for a meeting of 20 rights based NGOs: 8 from Andhra, 8 from Telengana, and 4 from Karnataka to discuss the experience of APNA. The meeting resulted in a path breaking decision to promote this movement of helping MGNREGA worker access all rights legislated for them through the GPSs formed across all the three States. The next step towards this is a meeting of over 35 APNA NGOs from Andhra with the purpose of building unity of rights based NGOs, which will take place on the 4th and 5^th of July in Kadapa. At this meeting we will initiate a signature campaign demanding a GO on the two proposals.

If we want to change the society through the unity of the rural poor, the voluntary organizations (NGOs)must first unite themselves. Rights-based NGOs of Andhra, Karnataka, and Telengana have learnt this. There is need to for all the rights based NGOs of the North and South India to unite, first to defend the MGNREGA from being diluted and to organise the poor who need work under MGNREGA and enable them to get work.  The unity of the NGOs will prevent contractors form depriving the workers of their work and prevent all forms of corruptions.    It is the NGOs and the organizations of the rural poor which will make possible for the poor to get all rights legislated for them.  

WRITTEN BY PRAXIS AND YIP