Withering the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) : Value Judgement and Social Welfare
- Part 2 -

Dr L Krishnamangol Singh *

The Invisible 9/11: 56 Years of AFSPA : Silent sit in protest by Womenfolk of Khwairamband Keithel in September 2014 :: Pix - Shanker Khangembam

In fact, judgement or opinion should be made after taking into consideration or putting together all ideas into distinct and coherent judgements. In fact, the judgement should not be based on a particular mind. And, it should be based on reasons and discovering of more knowledge and ideas which are true for all the rational minds. Thus, the new facts should be developed for the growth and refinement of judgement.

Thus, the growth and refinement of judgement is a function of the growth of knowledge. Therefore, a careful research and investigation is necessary in order to reveal all facts, which are useful to all. In fact, new research is essential in order to develop new theories and policies which can explain and address any issue or system.

And, in making new judgement or a series of judgements or policies, we have to look into the old judgements already made, and reject the old ideas or judgement and policies.

Thus, new researchers will provide new knowledge, skills and good judgement for transformation from partial knowledge to more comprehensive and full knowledge. Therefore, the growth of rational judgement is interrelated with the growth of knowledge. And, the growth of knowledge largely depends on new thinking and intellectual works. It also depends on discovery of new ideas and concepts, and construction of new theories and policies for developing new understanding that can address any social, economic and other issues. In fact, rational judgement requires new thinking, concepts, theories and policies.

Thus, economists used the term "value judgement" in explaining the individual welfare and social welfare. In the growth of economic science, particularly in the 18th century, Adam Smith, who was considered to be the main advocate of classical economics applied his judgements on the merits of laissez faire (market economy) without intervention of the Governments as the best economic system. There were also many economists or thinkers who merited different judgements for maximizing individual and social welfare, and also for maximizing economic growth and development.

For instance, the judgement also applies to the principle of choice and allocation of resources for maximizing economic welfare and development of the individuals and society. And, the neo-classical economists explained the interpersonal comparision of utility and value judgements in order to maximise the satisfaction of the individuals or the consumers.

In fact, in the neo-classical demand theory, the consumer applies his judgement (which may also be for her judgement) for the allocation of resources on different units of the various commodities for maximisation of utility. And, principle or law of the application of judgement or value judgement is basically concerned with maximisation of the welfare of the individual consumer. In fact, the neo-classical theory of demand is devoid of ethics in economic analysis.

Thus, the neo-classical theory falls within the purview of positive economics or positive microeconomics. And, the positive macroeconomics also explains the determination of economic variables. Both of them explain "what it is" and not "what it ought to be". Thus, they are not "prescriptive economics".

On the other hand, the normative economics explains both economic theories and policies. It also recommends and formulated economic policies. In fact, normative economics is prescriptive or applied economics. Thus, the exercise for the formulation of rational economic policies falls within the purview of normative economics that seeks to achieve economic growth and development, and also promote the social welfare of the people. But, it does not mean that it neglected the positive study in the formulation of economic policies.

And, as normative economic involves value judgement, it cannot avoid ethical considerations in formulating economic policies. In fact, the publication of the economics of welfare (A.C. Pigou, 1932) and subsequent development of welfare economics as a branch of economics in recent years has increased the importance of value judgements in the decision making process in various fields of development that encompasses both economic and non-economic factors. Here, we shall not elaborate the welfare economics.

However, it can be emphasised that value judgement implies or signifies the conceptions of what is good or bad. The concept also includes the ethical beliefs of the people about what is good or bad. In modern welfare economics, economists can pass judgements on economic changes. And, economists also combine both positive and normative economics as two methods of economics in the formulation of economic and public policies on the basis of certain criteria for promoting social and economic welfare of the people.

And, welfare economics as a branch of economics provides both theoretical and practical frameworks of policies for maximising social welfare. In fact, the modern welfare economics explains that any economic reorganisation can be made to increase the social welfare of the people without affecting the individual welfare. Thus, at Pareto optimality, attempt to increase the social welfare will affect the welfare of the individuals.

And, the social welfare implies the aggregation or the total of the satisfactions of the people or of all the individuals in the society. Thus, according to Pareto criterion, social welfare can be increased when the society as a whole is better off without making any individual worse off. In fact, Pareto optimum is a position from which it is impossible to make one better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources of inputs and outputs. And, it is a point of economic efficiency or efficiency of the society (i.e. the maximum welfare of the society). (To be contd)

It can therefore be emphasised that in Pareto optimum, the welfare of the individual of the society cannot be increased without affecting or reducing the welfare of another individual in the society. Thus, this state of the society is an ideal condition or desirable situation in which there will be economic and social efficiency. And some economists (Hicks, Kaldor, Scitorsky) explained for maximising social welfare in terms of the "compensation principle".

Thus, in modern welfare economics, the value judgement plays a significant role in promoting social welfare or welfare of the individuals. In fact, rational economic policies require value judgements that need to provide satisfaction of the people (by avoiding interpersonal comparisions) and remove the shortages and wants of the people.

Thus, the relationship between economic policies or public policies and value judgement is that the new economic policy should be a better policy than that of the other policy or compared to another policy. Thus, the criteria or principles of value judgement that can be followed in formulating economic and public policies need to fulfill the following conditions.

1. According to Richard B. Banot, the value judgement is a value judgement if it is a "good thing" or "good policy" (i.e. a better thing than the other or a better thing that maximises social welfare).

2. The judgement is a value judgement if it is morally obligatory (i.e. it should contain or involve moral values) in term of relationships.

3. If the judgement is to be a value judgement it should not be reprehensible (i.e. it should not entail condemnation for some undesirable things). This implies that the judgement which lacks moral values should be condemned.

4. And, the judgement is a value judgement if it is "morally praise-worthy". That is to say, any judgement is a value judgement if it is morally and socially acceptable.

In fact, these value statements or value judgements play a significant role in the formulation of economic and policies for maximizing economic development and social welfare in any country or state. In fact, these "value phrases" or value statements can be considered for expressing a value judgement or value judgements on any critical issue or choice of policy decision for maximizing social welfare that seeks to promote individual welfare without affecting each other. As already noted, this is a situation of Pareto optimality or economic efficiency, which also maximises the efficiency level of the society.

We may now apply the concept of value judgement to the decision for removal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from Manipur. It is observed that the AFSPA is a controversial issue in Manipur as there are sharp differences of opinion on the imposition of it in the State. In fact, the modern democratic Governments seek to establish a welfare state. Thus, they want to fulfill the fundamental objectives of a welfare state.

And one of the basic objectives of the state is to protect the life and property of the people and provide the needs of the people in the society. Today, the role of the Government in development is now redefined to satisfy, among others, the needs or wants of the people and expand the economic activities of the people.

In the context of India, both the Central and State governments seek to expand the governance and development through strengthening the State or Government institutions and expanding the role of the private sector and market economy. Thus, the Governments play critical roles in promoting people's participation in development in order to satisfy the economic needs of the people and maximise social welfare.

But, in the field of social welfare, there is another concept known as the "paternalist concept". According to this concept, a paternalist authority can maximise social welfare without considering the views of the individuals or views of the people in the society. Thus, very often, the decisions of the Governments affect the sentiments of the people as these decisions were taken without considering the relationships between the value judgements and development of the society.

Again, in this conceptual framework of social welfare followed by the paternalist authority, most of the decisions are arbitrary and dictatorial in nature. Thus, in due course of time, most of the dictatorial regimes and military rules were rejected by the people. In fact, most of the modern democratic governments have now abandoned the policy of strict control for governance and development of any nation. And, there is now expansion of social choices in development.

Most of the economists, therefore, have not applied the policy of strict control in formulating policies for maximising social welfare, governance and development in a democratic country. It is in this context that high value judgements need to be given for the repeal or removal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from Manipur in order to build up a new social and governance mechanism that can maximise an overall social welfare and development functions or activities of the State.

Concluded...