BARACK OBAMA - THE NEW MESSIAH ?
Averthanus L. D'Souza.
In times of acute crisis, when people feel completely helpless,
there is an understandable tendency to transfer all civic and economic
responsibilities to a "leader." History has provided us with ample examples
of
leaders who have emerged out of situations of hopelessness. History has also
shown
us that some leaders have performed their duties well because they have kept
their
ears to the ground and have expressed the true aspirations of the people; and
others
who have arrogantly assumed that they knew best what was good for the people
and
imposed their own views upon their citizens. Dictatorships are a distinct risk
in
times of crisis. The present global economic crisis is one more occasion when
people, not only the citizens of the U.S.A., but unfortunately, people from
all
over the world, are pinning their hopes on a single individual. Barack Obama
has
emerged at a time of very grave crisis. He represents the hopes of the entire
global community - and it is precisely in this situation that resides the risk
of
autocracy and the diminishing of the role of democracy in the U.S.A. as well as
in
the world. The first and foremost mistake that can be made is that the newly
elected President of the U.S.A. comes to believe that he is, in fact, the new
messiah who can save the world from the tragedy which faces it. The second
mistake
will be for the President and the people of the U.S.A. to believe that there is
an
economic solution to a problem which is far more complex and intricate than
appears
on the surface. The tragedy facing humankind may appear to be an economic
crisis,
but is, in fact, a more fundamental crisis of civilization. The economic
aspect is
more prominent because what is involved is loss of employment, cut in wages,
severe
slowdown in the demand for products and so on. The economy does not stand by
itself. It is always a part of a complex syndrome of social, cultural and
ethical
aspects of a style of life which has been induced and nurtured by a culture
which
has monetized values. Everything is measured in terms of money - including
human
life itself.
The real crisis of our times is a full-fledged crisis of
civilization. The diagnosis has to be made not merely by economists and
professional politicians but by sociologists, psychologists and moralists. To
use a
comparison, we have to try to understand the malaise not only in purely
physiological and medical terms, but also in psychological terms. In the
field of
health and wellbeing, every case of illness was sought to be explained by some
dysfunction in the physiological system in the individual. Only very
recently,
medical practitioners have come to accept that many medical problems have
their
source in the minds of their patients. The term "psychosomatic" is of very
recent
origin, and the acknowledgement of the role of the mind and of social
circumstances
on the physical health of the individual is also of very recent origin.
Similarly, in the field of economics and politics, there has been a growing
recognition that many of our economic and political problems cannot be
explained
simply in economic or political terms. There are many other complex factors
which
affect our social wellbeing. Some social scientists describe this as a
problem of
"lifestyle." Lifestyle, of course, embodies choices which are ethical and
sociological. The present economic crisis is not a sudden occurrence. It
is not
something which has suddenly burst upon us. It is a problem which has been
long in
the making and the signs of which were evident a long time ago. In the waning
months of World War I, a great economist, Joseph Schumpeter published a short
essay: Der Steuerstaat (The Fiscal State) in which he pointed out that no
government could raise, either through taxes or through borrowings, more than a
very
small percentage of a country's national income. Twenty years after
Schumpeter, the
Australian economist Colin Clark (just before World War II) asserted that
government could not take more than around one-quarter of a country's gross
national
product or gross personal income without creating irresistible inflationary
pressures. Ernest F Schumacher of Small is Beautiful fame argued, very
convincingly indeed, that the economy should be so ordered as to meet every
individual's needs. Production should always have a social purpose - without
such a
social purpose, production become exploitative. Schumacher was reflecting
Gandhiji's
view that "there is enough to satisfy everyone's needs; but there will never be
enough to satisfy everyone's greed." These sane voices have been ignored by
people and governments, and we are now reaping the consequences of our
stupidity.
In fact, what is happening before our very eyes is that the Obama government of
the
U.S.A. is presuming to be able to solve the global problem by "stimulating"
demand
in the economy. The argument runs: if you stimulate demand, production will
increase, if production increases, more jobs will be created, if more jobs are
created, people will have more to spend on unnecessary products. This is a
vicious
circle if ever there were one.
Already as far back as 1776, Adam Smith had argued in his book The Wealth of
Nations
that governments cannot run the economy. Peter Drucker, in his book The New
Realities very emphatically draws our attention to what Adam Smith was saying.
According to Drucker, "(Smith) did not argue that government does a poor job
running
the economy. He argued that government, by its very nature, cannot run the
economy,
not even poorly. He did not, so to speak, argue that elephants are poorer
flyers
than swallows. He argued that government, being an elephant, can't fly at all."
It is the supreme irony of our times that "Democrats" are
undermining the very basis of true democracy which is government of the
people, for
the people, by the people, by investing in their government powers which no
government is competent to handle. Peter Drucker points out that "Governments
find
it very hard to abandon an activity even if it has totally outlived its
usefulness.
They thus become committed to yesterday, to the obsolete, to the no longer
productive. And government cannot give up either when an activity has
accomplished
its objectives. A private business can be liquidated, sold, dissolved. A
government activity is "forever". There are now 'sunset laws' which prescribe
that
government activities after a given time lapse unless they are re-enacted.
But
legislatures rarely refuse to renew an activity no matter how obsolete or
futile it
has become." The role of any government is to "govern" - not to run financial
or
manufacturing institutions; nor to run educational institutions. There are
limits
to government which have been established by long experience. Once these
limits are
breached, there is a great risk of curtailment of individual rights and the
rights
of small enterprises. The debate as to whether socialism is preferable to
capitalism will continue for some time to come; but the answers have to be
sought,
not in numbers of legislators sitting on either side of the aisle. The
problem, as
has been argued, is neither a purely political nor an economic one. It is
primarily
a moral problem. Therefore the answers have to be sought in the realm of
ethics.
=end=
Averthanus L. D'Souza
Goa
