Daron Acemoglu, Charles Kindleberger Professor of Applied Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and James Robinson, Professor of Government at Harvard University, have recently brought out a book entitled "Economic Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship".
This is a serious work in Economics which is definitely going to have a mark on the research on development issues in the years to come. While the detailed arguments may not be easily accessible to a non-economist, the core argument is easily appreciable.
The authors have defined four possible paths for a political development to take place –
(a) once established, democracy is self sustaining;
(b) democracy, even if once established, collapses easily;
(c) a sustaining and unequal society non-democracy; and
(iv) a sustaining egalitarian society non-democracy.
The authors provide the examples of Britain, Argentina, Singapore and South Africa respectively of the above four paths. The authors see politics as necessarily conflictual – conflictual between the interests of the elites and those of the citizens, between interests of different groups.
It is the relative economic position and dissatisfaction against inequality and the possibility of revolutions to completely overthrow that bargains, concessions, power and economic sharing emerge that ultimately shape what political path results.
From Here:
It is exactly at this stage that reading the book one cannot help pondering about one's own country, Manipur. In all the cases the authors have examined, the resultant scenario has been the result of interplay of endogenous forces. Whether the result has been democracy or otherwise, the inherent move for enhancement of well-being of the population cannot be missed.
Whereas in the global cases of bargaining, concessions, admissions and settlements for a political path the principals (elites) as well as the agents (citizens) have all been endogenous, in the present context of Manipur it has not been so.
In an endogenous context, the solutions emerged also would have been endogenous. It is in this area of endo-geneity and exogeneity that Manipur has a real problem. The various conflicts of interest and articulations are not allowed to emerge towards an endogenous solution for the elite (the political principal) is somewhere outside and not endogenous.
The various forces articulate and mobilise with the objective of drawing more out of the exogenous elite and not to evolve a system inherent to the region and capable of leading towards a long run political path.
This is it:
This is the problem Manipur now faces and pays the price for it as well. The elite are in Delhi whereas all the political games are played out in Manipur. So there is an absolute disconnect between the forces at play and the principal who would decide the fate of the games.
That is why democracy has not been able to take roots, and the various articulations and games have not led to any improvement in the socio-economic milieu.
Even the election in general, particularly in the hills reminds in the main rather of Rock's account of Argentina: "The electoral law of 1853, which purported to allow popular participation in the political process, from the beginning proved itself a sham.
Elections were invariably ritualistic parodies, stage-managed by lackeys of the powerful, with only a minute fraction of the electorate participating".
Another Actor:
What makes the case of Manipur even more peculiar and precarious is the exogenous presence of another non-traditional elite in the form of the army. Despite being boast about the largest democracy in the world, the army in India has been allowed to develop a vested interest of its own in the case of Manipur, or otherwise one fails to appreciate the frequent open ex-pression of policy views (emphasis policy views as against strategic ones) by the army generals of the country.
One really feels very disturbed, rather painful, when the army general of the country reduces the population of Manipur into mobs. India's army general while expressing opinion about the hated and dreaded AFSPA expressed that the 'law' (is it law in the real sense of the term, one wonders) is needed to fight the insurgents who would get into the mob and the jawans should not be expected to fight with both the hands tied behind.
First, I am very disturbed that an army officer has reduced the population of Manipur into a mob.
Secondly, I feel very sad for Indian democracy that an army officer has got the guts to speak in the open on how I (well now a member of the mob) should be governed.
Thirdly, the longevity with which the controversy of AFSPA has been allowed to linger speaks of the wide chasm between the endogenous articulations and the exogenous principals.
Well one really wishes a system were evolved where this chasm is removed, and democracy established fully in Manipur.
There are yet lots of issues to be addressed by the Indian democracy to make the people of Manipur feel that it is a case of people's democracy and not of them being made people of democracy.
* Amar Yumnam writes regularly for The Sangai Express. The writer is at present a Visiting Scholar at University of Southern California, Los Angeles and can be contacted at [email protected] . This article was webcasted on December 17th 2006.
|