In the midst of the current credit crunch and global economic downturn, John Samuel revisits the context behind the infamous 1930s great depression. The author contends that while the context behind the current financial crisis and that of the early 1930s are not identical, the high concentration of wealth within a few hands remains essentially the same.

“It is over” - a succinct way of informing the death of a dogma, the greed-driven neoliberal capitalism. On September 15, 2008, that is how one of stockbrokers in Wall Street described the fall of the Lehman Brothers. The fall of the Lehman was a visible signifier of the Tsunami that hit the base of a turbulent sea called the Wall street - the world of high pitched financial trade and investment. It was the story of a disaster foretold. The dogma is dead now under the debris of the famed investment banks. There is no more consensus in Washington. Karl Marx must be laughing in his grave, says John Samuel.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/387/49362g8escapism.jpgThe meeting of G8 leaders in Hokkaido, Japan, proved to be an exercise in escapism. The final communiqué of the G8 leaders is more of a recycled rhetoric of broken promises. This meeting, held in the midst of financial, fuel, food and climate crisis, failed to recognize the gravity of the crisis. The G8 leaders’ posturing of confidence will not help to solve these issues. This would further increase the legitimacy crisis of G8 as a credible forum to develop any viable solution for the ongoing problems of hunger and injustice- partly perpetuated by the corporate and institutional interests of G8 countries.

The original grouping of rich industrialized nations – G7- emerged in the context of the oil crisis of the 1970s. Now after almost thirty years, G8- that includes the co-opted Russia- face the challenge of being responsible to address the looming crisis of finance, fuel and food. The balance sheet of G8 in the last thirty years clearly shows that G8 as an institutionalized venue failed to provide any meaningful solution to the issues of poverty, war, inequities and injustice that confront the world. While they have managed to impose the neoliberal policy paradigm- with the strategic use of World Bank and IMF conditionality- on the developing world and poor nations of the world, they have not been able to do anything substantial to address trade inequities, aid diversion and debt trap. In fact, G8 leaders, instead of solving these issues, often used the Summits to push forward the interest of the rich countries, with lots of window dressing and rhetoric about poverty reduction, and more aid for the poor countries. In 2005, they promised to write off the debt and double the aid to Africa to address issues of poverty, disease and sustainable development. After three years, these leaders stand exposed in the graveyard of broken promises.

Though a new grouping of G5, countries, including India, China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico, are being co-opted in to the periphery of the G8 Summits. The G5 Countries too have failed to influence the agenda or outcome of the G8 process. So it is high time for the G5 countries to ponder the very validity of being in the periphery of the G8 Summit- legitimizing the agenda setting role of the rich and powerful countries. Instead of playing the second fiddle to the rich American- European axis and a co-opted Japan, it is high time for G5 to explore the option of reviving the G20 process as an alternate option to discuss and to adopt collective measures to address the issues that confront humanity and the world. This requires a fresh imagination and political will from the part of the G5 leaders.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/383/48974oilrig.jpgWe could be on the threshold of a new phase of globalisation, one where there will be a new protectionism, more regional trade and regional economic activism and where governments will be forced to address the problems of the vulnerable middle class and poor, argues John Samuel.
====

Oil is back in the centre of economic and political discourse, at the international, national and local level. What does this mean for the future of the economy and geo-politics?

The roots of this phase of economic globalisation lie in the economics and politics of the 1970s. The protagonist was oil. There was a food crisis too. This perpetuated the new cycle of debt and highly indebted poor countries. The economic turmoil of the 1970s (due to the oil shock, saturation of the role of the State and consequent inefficient and ineffective public expenditure, food crisis, and consequent new indebtedness of poor and developing countries) paved the way for the new mix of neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and the third way. The indebtedness and balance of payment crisis in many countries gave unprecedented power to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank -- and the consequent economic and policy conditionalities they imposed. That is how the story of the new phase of economic globalisation, a mix of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism – the Reagan-Thatcher prescription -- commenced, sometime in the early-'80s.

While there are similarities between the oil shock, food crisis and economic conditions of the '70s and the one we are beginning to face now, the political and economic context are not the same. The first 25 years after the Second World War saw unprecedented and sustained economic growth in Europe and America. In fact, the demand created by reconstruction activities after the war, the aid system in the '50s, and the capabilities in Europe without the burden of maintaining the colonies, helped to a significant extent to propel this economic growth. In other words, there was a significant demand within western countries and internal market competence to deliver the supplies.

By the '70s, the market got saturated in terms of demand, and the State got saturated in terms of the sustainability of public sector spending and effective social welfare. As a result, there was a real compulsion to find new markets elsewhere and to restructure the tax and public expenditure pattern. The rise of Japan and the competitive edge of Japanese products in Asia, the oil rich Gulf countries and the United States also created a sense of urgency to create new markets. To a certain extent the European Union was a sort of political solution to enable market integration to address the issue of market saturation.

The oil shock, and the consequent debt trap and balance of payment crisis, was a great opportunity for OECD countries to develop a combined strategy of trade, aid and debt and the conditionality approach to open up the markets of developing countries and less developed countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa. The economic and political implosion of the USSR in the late-'80s also created a crisis of the centralised policy planning mode and a non-dollar-based trade framework (there was almost a barter system between the USSR and many other countries). In fact, more than the ideological threat of communism, the West was worried about trade (in oil, arms and other commodities); such a system was a global road block for the western capitalist mode of trade. After the fall of the USSR, it was a free ride for finance capitalism and the neo-liberal mode of policy and trade framework.

The present situation is very different. The growth of the last 15 years is propelled by the growth of Asian economies, of Latin America, and parts of Africa. For the first time, the population of China and India tend to become an economic asset, instead of a liability, in terms of productive capability and domestic market expansion. Such a growth is partly due to new infrastructure development in different parts of Asia (in fact, much bigger in scale than the one in Europe in the '60s), and also due to the competitive edge in terms of cheap labour and skills. The finance capital market too played a key role in propelling new investments in the stock market that, in turn, propelled the economy. Asian countries are beginning to play a competitive game and are also using the finance capital market to acquire market share, productive capacities and big multinational corporations. Many of the takeovers (by Tata, Mittal and others) are of immense symbolic importance.

Due to the flight of jobs and due to the crisis of social development, there is a fast emerging, vulnerable, middle class and poor across Europe and the US. There is the added shade of identity politics (dramatically different from the old communist “threat”). The migrant communities which provided the crucial labour inputs during Europe's growth period have become a political liability now. This means there is more political and economic insecurity among a large number of the working class, vulnerable middle class, and the poor. All European countries are facing a new internal crisis of politics and economics (particularly in the context of the alienation of Muslim communities born and brought up in Europe).

This means there is a shift in the political sociology at the grassroots level in the USA, the EU and other parts of Western Europe. Many European countries such as Italy, Spain and France are facing a serious economic crisis. This also means that there can be a shift in the macro-political economy and geo-politics. Hence, the context is dramatically different from that of the economic crisis of the '70s. Today, there is no crisis of balance of payment (so far) and there is lots of foreign exchange reserves. There are vibrant domestic markets in India and China. In fact, the growth is sustained by the economic growth in Asia.

It seems the ongoing economic troubles, oil price hike, and food crisis, will be the springboard for another key political and economic shift in the world. The price of oil climbed from $10 a barrel in 1999 to $135 in the second week of June 2008. Goldman Sachs says it will hit $200 within the next 24 months! This means that the price of oil has risen by 900% in the last one decade. Oil spending as a share of global economy may cross 7% (more than the peak in 1979). Oil drives the engine of the present global economy. The US consumes 25% of the world output. Though demand in China and India increased, China consumes 9% and India consumes only 3% of the total oil demand.

As the price of oil climbs, commodity prices will go up. This also means that food prices will be relatively higher in the international market. The oil price increase is bringing about new political tension and turmoil. But if the price goes up, at least in some segments there will be a decrease in demand. The SUV market in the US and elsewhere was already in a slump and will face a crisis. This will also have consequences in countries like China and India which sustain the global economic growth (and demand for commodities) to a large extent. It will be difficult to sustain subsidy levels for oil in India and governments will be forced to increase the price (there is no other way). A mix of inflation, increasing oil price and deceleration of the economy (for example in real estate) can create new political tensions and equations in many countries, including India.

The increasing price of oil will make the oil-producing countries very cash rich. So the prominence of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries will significantly increase. This may also induce a new arms race -- led by Russia. On the one hand it will give rise to a multi-polar world, and on the other hand it can propel a war. It is also interesting to note that most of the oil-producing countries are run by autocratic or authoritarian regimes, many of them in the Arab world.

The role of National Sovereign Funds of Gulf countries will increase dramatically. It is estimated that if the price of oil price climbs, six Gulf countries will have a value of $95 trillion dollars (the American economy is around $13 trillion) -- about twice the size of the public equity market. Already Sovereign Wealth Funds of the Gulf countries are buying up the major and controlling stakes of big western banks and this will create new protectionism. A possible inflation (if it crosses 15%) in Asia can cause serious economic trouble. There will be a devaluation of currencies in these countries -- with potential trouble for the finance capital market. There is a real trend of inflation in most countries in Asia (Vietnam is the highest, Thailand is almost 10%, and India, China and others too face it) and the oil price hike will further accentuate the problem. Persistent inflation and stagnant economic growth may result in stagflation in different parts of Asia, including India.

All this means that (a) this phase of economic globalisation will not be sustainable and it will be a transit to the next phase, (b) there will be a new protectionism (particularly in terms of commodity markets, food etc), and (c) There will be more regional trade and regional economic activism.

So, there will possibly be a tendency to regulate finance flow and there will be more restriction for commodity markets. The elections and politics of Europe and the USA will be forced to address the issue of the vulnerable middle class and the poor. Look at the election promises in the USA – it's about jobs. The health system and social security are also top of the agenda. There will be political pressure to increase the allocation for the social sector and for creating new jobs and a reduction of foreign aid (this is what happened in Japan from 1999 onwards).

The next US President will be forced to initiate new protectionism and new social welfare measures. This will have an impact on global trade. The oil price hike may affect travel as well as trade (due to higher freight charges). All this does not mean a “reversal of globalistion”. It means a new phase of globalisation along with a new protectionism in many countries. There will be scope for a New Deal and a new kind of social democratic politics in Europe and elsewhere.

The world is on the threshold of a new phase. The present economic slowdown is likely to persist for another four years. It will influence the shape of the economy, political dynamics and geo-politics in the years to come.

*John Samuel is a social activist and the International Director of Actionaid.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

John Samuel cautions Africa that technology should not come at the expense of Africa's "a shared sense of community, mutual support, trust and a culture of collective approach."

Growth and technological innovations are the two key drivers of change. Technology and economic growth feed in to each other. Access to economic growth and technology is supposed to make life more comfortable. But the key paradox of economic and technological growth is that both of them tend to increase comfort and decrease the level of happiness. While rapid economic growth can create access to income, it can also create the paradox of abundance - wherein quantity of money and comforts subvert and undermine the quality of time, life, living and environment.

When growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) does not produce a parallel growth in Gross Domestic Happiness (GDH), the purpose of economic growth and the use and misuse of technology are put into question. Economic growth is not a bad idea. But abundance can also create perpetual tension between the zest for freedoms and entrenched fears within and without. Such tensions can wake up the demons within the self and society - ceasing to trust each other, with increasing insecurity, paranoia and violence.

While embracing neo-liberal economic growth and new technologies, it is important for Africa to understand and appreciate the pros and cons of economic and technological growth. Africa's biggest resource, apart from its natural resources, is a shared sense of community, mutual support, trust and a culture of collective approach. However, bulldozing capitalism and economic growth of few elites superimposed on rather traditional societies can create new inequalities, individuation, paranoia and consequent violence. If only a minuscule minority get access to the fruits of economic growth and technology, it can indeed create an Economics of Violence. A shared sense of inequality and injustice become breeding grounds for alienation and reactionary violence. This is evident on the streets of Johannesburg to Nairobi.

Hence, it will be worthwhile to look at the experience of some of the fast growing economies in Asia. Most of the Asian countries too have a strong sense of community and collective ethics. But in the new flood of economic growth and technological invasion, new challenges are emerging.

Technology is both the beauty and the beast at the same time. Technology is a double edged sword. Every tool's validity depends on who uses it for what. Tool itself may not be political- but the use of tool is always an exercise of Power.

Technology has been the main protagonist in the drama of economic growth in the modern and post-modern times. Technology did make a difference to human condition, comforts and lives. Technology has almost acquired God-like- power to create, sustain and destruct; and at the same time a means for the search for perfection; conquering stars and cloning life. The ground zero in New York, the blazing guns and exploding young men on a busy street symbolize the frightening dance of technology.

It is the unequal and asymmetric access to technology that also propelled various kinds of dominations. In fact, technology, as means of domination- as means to travel great distance, communicate and as a means to confront an "enemy' with more "productive" killing power( weapons of mass destruction- played a very important role in all conquests. Those who had access to horse breeding, gun powder, steam energy, ship technology, missiles, space technology used all these to create muscle power to dominate. This power play and technology are still being played out across the world. The origin of this very technology- Internet- too is in the defense labs of the US.

There is a clear connection between patterns of conquests, colonialisation, technology and natural resources. Colony went where there was coal, timber, iron, and food. Hence, in the 18nth or 19th century the so called “middle east” did not exist in the imperialist scheme of things. Railway lines happened wherever there were some resources to be ripped off. The printing press created new politics of knowledge, and new rules for domination. Of course, printing press also unleashed a linguistic revolution- through hundreds of new grammar, new dictionaries, new Bibles and new books. Translations translated and transformed lives and times. Shipping technology helped us to cross the sea to hold hands as well as to capture lands. The moment technology shifted from Steam based mechanics to Oil one could see the shift in focus of imperialism. There is a direct connection between the discovery of oil in the early twentieth century and the shift of imperial interests to the so called “Middle East"(erstwhile Persia and Arabia).

In a metro-line in Tokyo, most of the young people are glued to their mobile, playing games, browsing Internet, chatting with someone on line and they hardly even notice the person sitting next. While people are connecting with some in the distance, they are alienated from the person sitting or living next door. The cyber world, social networking on the net etc creates different sort of virtual and imagined communities, while subverting and undermining human communities in real lives.

In counties like Japan, young people seem to be too busy to fall in or rise in love. Thirty thousand people commit suicide every year- one of the highest in the world. An aggressive economic growth and an invading technology seem to have created more people using Internet to find a "mate' to sleep with or to do "love- networking, and young people using technology to get a high kick to make "suicide- pact" on the net. When even love, passion and feeling get automated and orderly with sense of perfect routine, life becomes a boring burden: where life cease to give any excitement, people may search excitement in death! It has become a case of an economic society superimposed on a very traditional socio-cultural society , with pervading sense of new individuation and depoliticisation.

Everyone seems to be so pre-occupied with his or her own economic survival, at the cost of emotional security, resulting social/community disintegration. Every young person seems to be busy finding a job, proving his or her sense of self-worth as a "hardworking" professional with “sincerity" to the job. There is no time to hold hands, to walk in a park or to sing a song. When life is so automated and orderly without a possibility of anarchic thinking and life, creativity takes a back seat and productivity takes a front seat. Livelihood takes precedence over living and living takes precedence over life. Efficiency of our work goes up and the effectiveness of life gets discounted.

So when human beings cease to be social and creative and tend to be productive workforce, preoccupied with survival of the self, the seeds of alienation bloom in to a cancer of social disintegration and depolitisation. One ceases to be a part of a community but a loner in the midst of an anonymous crowd. This sense of erosion of aesthetics from human relations and society tend dehumanize the society and the world.

Sudden economic growth can induce more demands in some sectors, pushing up the cost of price and living. The increased income of a miniscule minority also propelled new consumerism with consequent increase in cost of living. In rapid growing economies of Asia, the sky rocketing real estate prices, smashed the housing dreams and rights of the majority of urban middle class. This in turn reduces the real purchasing capacity and increase the discontent of those who did not get much out of economic growth; making the recipe for an economics of violence.

Economic growth and technology may increase the access to comforts, but may also induce new individuation (transforming people from "social animal" to "economic animal" driven by economic compulsions), social disintegration, new paranoia and consequent loss of time or mindset for poetry, politics, love, companionship or community.

This paranoia, emotional insecurity and loss of community also create a new market for spiritualism and new adapted form of market-driven religious denominations. Brand new spiritual shops and “gurus” are thriving as a result of the market induced emotional and social insecurity among people who have becomes the villains and victims of the mega-markets!

*John Samuel is a social activist and the International Director of Actionaid.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

John Samuel argues that there is a direct correlation between the health of the political party system and the vitality and long term viability of a democracy.

Political Parties are one of the most crucial factors for the sustenance of a viable democratic system. However, political parties across the world are facing a crisis. They have been reduced to mere electoral mechanism or network to capture the power of the State. They are less and less social institutions or legitimizing agents of political process and increasingly turned in to “interest-networks” promoted by the larger economic forces and identity politics of various shades

There seems to be a direct connection between the health of the political party system and the vitality and long term viability of a democracy. The strength, limitations and the contradictions of the political party system get reflected in the process of governance and the character of the state.

Political parties are socio-political institutions, in the public sphere, that help citizens to interface and negotiate with the state. Political parties are also primary legitimizing agents of the government and governing systems of the state. The social function and legitimizing role of political parties are under unprecedented strain. In most of the countries, political parties have rather less institutional history and social roots. Many of them emerged as a corollary to the state power and an instrument to sustain the state power. In the absence of a multi-party system- with grass-roots presence, a committed cadre of leader and wide network with in the society- democratic process can be subverted and political process can be appropriated by a minority of vested interests.

In case of many of the decolonized countries, the nation states as well as political parties are the consequences of decolonization rather than causes of decolonization.
The very process of decolonizing also involved sowing the seeds of conflicts based on ethnicity, religion and identity in most of the countries. Unlike the case of India, there were not many mass struggles or wider political mobilization for freedom from the Colonial Powers. The struggle against colonialisation and imperialism was in many ways the beginning of the process of democratization and political process in most of countries in the world. The process of decolonizing also ensured the emergence of faulty and fragile democratic systems and process – more often initiated by an educated elite minority in conjunction with the erstwhile colonial powers. In poor countries, the absence of a vibrant middle class and healthy economy make political parties less viable socio-political institutions.

The vibrant multiparty system, with multiple ideological and identity base helped to sustain, stabilize and strengthen a unique brand of Indian Democratic system. . In fact, apart from the Congress party, the left parties and the parties on the right too contributed to make India a viable multiparty democracy

However, in many of the other South Asian countries, the absence of a vibrant multi-party system weakened the governance as well as democracy. During the cold war period, most of the left political forces in other parts of South Asia was subverted or eradicated by the nexus of ruling elite and western political and economic forces. The eradication of left political forces from Pakistan and Bangladesh actually had long term political impact in weakening the foundations of democratic process in both countries. The deep rooted feudal values and identity politics based on cast, religion or ethnicity and sub-nationalities shaped the very character, hierarchy of political party systems South Asia, including India. Hence the secular values, or cosmopolitan political ethos and democratic values are actually skin deep in almost all the political party system in India and the rest of South Asia

Political parties are filled with career politician with a single point agenda of getting a piece of state power and the privileges and paraphernalia that come with the package. Many of the political parties are now controlled by a “power-clique” and “fund-managers” and “telegenic leaders”, blessed by media and sustained by the corporate funds.

Elections are reduced to media stunts with “brand” slogans and empty “policy rhetoric”, devoid of any in-depth political process or social mediations. The increasing dependence on media-centric campaigning and corporate funds undermine the very character and autonomy of political party system. New political-corporate elites are in the business of subverting politics and policy framework of the state to maximize profit for few dominant economic forces in a given economy. As many social activists, writers and intellectuals choose to work within the civil society, political parties are facing an acute deficit of creative and ethical leadership.

*John Samuel is a civil society activist and International Director of Actionaid.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

John Samuel argues that the opiates of new conservatism, fundamentalism and other forms of politics of exclusion- make a bad divine comedy of Politics and makes a tragedy of democratic process.?

??In the beginning there was word, word was with God and word was God. Then the Priest came to represent the Word and the God. Then came the sword. Sword was with the Prince. And sword was the Prince. Then prince became the state and State became the sword. Then came the trade. Trade was with the merchant. Trade was Merchant. Merchant became the Market. Market became the Missionary. Hence, the World was made of words, swords and trade. Word was spread through the sword. Words sustained the sword. Then trade helped to spread the word and the sword. Here began the divine comedy of words, sword and trade. Priests, Prince and Merchant ran the world with their words, swords and trade. This divine comedy is the mother of all politics.??

Politics is the dynamics of power-relations in a given society at a given point in time. Power relations often get channeled thorough and negotiated by social institutions. Historically, socio-cultural institutions like religion, clans, tribe and family played a very important role in channeling, mediating and negotiating power and political process. ??Divinity was evoked to legitimize and sustain power in the realm of religious institutions and religion often subcontracted such process to family by “legalizing” and legitimizing the most important events of human life- birth, death, and procreation through male-female relationships.

Religion created the soft-power through beliefs, knowledge, myths, rituals and institutions. Such a sense of soft-power was a pre-requisite to build hard power through the sword. Priest became the first ideologue of political power. He gave moral legitimacy for domination through patriarchy. The Brahmin, Mullah, Monk, or the Bishops interpreted the world and legalized the words- by making the norms, canons and law. Priests played multiple roles as philosophers, theologians, teachers, sorcerer and alchemists. Priests created the “order of things”. Priest was a necessity for the entry and sustenance of the Prince. The most common form of evident power was always the “physical” contestation to acquire and dominate. This gets institutionalized through weapons, army and war. Military provided the bull-work to dominate and sustain power for the Prince- from Darius to Alexander to the Romans, from Genghis Khan to Ottomans Turks, from Napoleon to Hitler, and from Stalin to George Bush!??

Power was legitimized by the Priests, disguised as philosophers or teachers, and sustained by the Military of the Prince. The hegemony at given time was managed through the process of creating consent (often through religious –social networks) and coercion (by the Military power of the Prince). Priest and the prince together made the Law and Order- where they combined the power of the word and the sword.??

With the emergence of trade, market, and surpluses, money began to play a role in shaping politics. Eventually the art of politics was managed by the Prince (with weapons and army), Priest (who derive authority from the divine) and the Merchant (who financed war). The entire colonial project and imperialist politics were driven by the old power trinity of the Prince- Priest and Merchant. They used trade, sword and bible to appropriate territories, markets, culture and human mind. In many ways religions and priests provided the moral and ideological framework to capture and dominate the world. Most of the major religions spread across the world either through sword or trade. Hence, the priest was an ideological necessity to give moral veneer to any act of atrocity and domination. All major religions have the smell of blood acquired through war and plunder at one point or other point in history. Patriarchy, totem and taboo and identity based contestation became the underlying factors to acquire, sustain and manage power relationships.??

Then the nation-state came. Prince, Priest and Merchants were not supposed to be in charge. “We the people” were supposed to be in charge of the modern manifestation of power. New institutional formations came into being to channel, negotiate and sustain power. That is how political parties came in as a modern social- and political institution, in the context of the liberal democratic politics and state. ??With the separation of the Church and State, a relatively secular democratic process emerged in many of the countries in Europe and other parts of the world. Secular democracy became the flavour of the month. Thus the priest and the merchant retreated to background of the political process. The emergence of the political parties helped to replace the old political nexus of Prince-Priest and the Merchant. In the process, the new power-elites competed with each other, in the name of various political parties, to capture and sustain the state power. Those leaders in the business of capturing and sustaining state power, through “democratic processes, became the modern day equivalent of the Prince.?????

In the course of democratic exercise of capturing and sustaining the state power, merchants once again came to the forefront as the financiers of the political parties and electoral process. This nexus of political elites and powerful corporate elites appropriated the modern state and institutions of governance. With the emergence of neo-liberal policy framework, the cash-rich corporate leaders began to influence political and policy making process through financing political parties, electoral process and through knowledge- media network. ??While this new nexus subverted the democratic process and appropriated the policy making process, political party leaders lost the moral authority to influence society or people. This made them increasingly dependent on religious institutions and networks to seek social legitimacy and to gather votes. They needed the blessings of Bishops- Mullahs or Swamis or Monks to sustain to their State power and electoral base. Thus, the priest too returned to the forefront of the political process.?

So the old nexus of the Prince, Priest and Merchants are back in their new avatar of the power trinity of political leaders- transnational corporations- new religious networks and leaders. In spite of secularism and democracy, religion refuses to fade away from politics (with their divine commissions, sanctions, authority and vested interests). Religious leaders and networks too adopted a marketing approach, using modern media, advertisement, high-tech networking and strategic influence to increase their power and presence. Military and market are still in charge in most of the countries in the world. In many cases, both the religious institutions and the military are in the business of discrediting, undermining and sabotaging political parties to sustain their power. Media often play a subservient role to Market and Religion- as both are sources of revenue. Instead of being the fourth-estate among the democratic institutions, Media has become the pimp of the new power trinity... They have successfully appropriated the state power and institutions of governance- by subverting the political process.??

The interesting thing is that most of the authoritarian military regimes do not touch religion and many a time they rule in collusion with religion or religious institutions. Such religious institutions or network are also well entrenched social network to channel power, to collect information, to manage, to control and to dominate through power-networks of the prince and the priests. The prince and the priest tend to seek validation and resources from the merchant to sustain the power. All three of the “power-characters” see political parities as a necessary modern evil! This new power nexus has either appropriated political parties as an instrument to capture state power or discredited political parties to directly capture the state power through military coup. ??Thus democracy has been reduced to a formal electoral mechanism or a farce. Democracy is often used as a mere veneer of legitimacy to capture and sustain State- Power. In fact, the priest is back in the form of new conservatism, in the form of vote-bank, in the form of new fundamentalism and in the form of new identity politics. As the political parties and leaders get seduced into the big money and corrupt practices, the religious leaders (Bishops, Mullahs, Swamis and Monks) tend to influence society through their media, social network and identity politics; harvesting on the new insecurities and paranoia in the context of consumerism, advanced capitalism and terrorism.?

Thus Politics itself is being turned into a Divine Comedy- where Priests once again return to the centre stage with their divine aura and new marketing techniques to become the king-makers in the postmodern world. Prince and Merchants get into in to a new power-sharing. In the process, state becomes subservient to market, with the blessings of the Priest. Citizens are reduced to consumers or believers- who are ready to buy and follow, who are ready to kill themselves or be killed for their beliefs. When the citizens are robbed off their sense of agency, most of the “mass” end up as the puppets of the merchant or priests and they dance to tune of the prince. This dancing of “mass” –alienated from the sense of agency- to the tune of Priests – to the tune of new conservatism, fundamentalism and politics of exclusion- make a bad divine comedy of Politics. It makes a tragedy of democratic process.?

It is high time to reclaim the state and democratic process from the new avatars of the old nexus of Prince-Priest – Merchants. It is also time to ensure that the Bishops-Mullahs Swamis and Monks do not make a divine comedy out of democracy.

* John Samuel is a human rights activist and is currently International Director of Actionaid, based in Bangkok.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Everything small is beautiful these days. NGOs, busy with micro finance and micro politics for the poor, are small, beautiful -- and powerless. Meanwhile, the beast of markets and States can continue to dominate macro economics and politics. This neat division into micro and macro sustains the unjust power relationships that perpetuate impoverishment, inequality and injustice, says John Samuel

Small may seem beautiful. But is this beauty enough to take on the beast? These days there is a great deal of talk about micro-this and micro-that -- as if it were the most desirable thing. But can micro beauty challenge and change the macro beast of market and State? At the core of this is the question is power: what kinds and modes of power relationships shape social and economic policies? How differently does power operate in its micro and macro dimensions? How is power derived and sustained? Our predicament is that power can create the delusion of ‘empowerment’ and the subjugation of the ‘empowered’ at the same time.

Why is it that in spite of all the magic of micro credit and the perceived ‘empowerment’, the poor and marginalised fail to influence the macro politics of Bangladesh or for that matter any country? Why is the celebrated hero of micro credit ending up a zero in the macro party politics of Bangladesh? Why is it that in spite of a long history of ‘civil society’ initiatives and grassroots ‘empowerment’ by organisations like SEWA and many Gandhian organisations in the state of Gujarat in India, thousands of people were massacred in broad daylight, with the complicity of the State? Why does most of ‘civil society’ fail to respond to the uncivil behaviour of organised political forces and State power? Why is it that the so-called ‘social capital’ in southern Italy failed to counter the rise of fascism? This is where we need to understand the limitations of micro politics and micro finance.

The crux of the matter is that it is often macro power relationships and macro economics that call the shots, while micro politics can perpetuate a false sense of power. Micro politics and micro finance may offer a sense of power. But such power is no more than a delusion when it is subservient to unjust power relationships that perpetuate injustice, inequality and impoverishment. Often micro power and micro politics are simply bulldozed or consistently subverted by the macro power of the State and market -- the beasts of macro politics and economics -- deriving their power from a coercive army, a media that manufactures consent, and markets that masquerade as the messiah.

These days we hear a lot about micro finance, micro enterprises, local governance and empowerment at the grassroots level. The new stress on the rights-based approach to development, civil society action, civic virtues, community-based mobilisations and grassroots empowerment all seem to stress largely on micro and very little on macro. Micro is for the poor and excluded and macro is for the rich and powerful. Micro finance and micro politics can be subcontracted to NGOs while macro politics and macro economics will be controlled by organised corporate and market power along with the political elite. This is where the delusions of power and the delusions of development begin.

What is the problem? The problem is that while the so-called NGOs or Civil Society Institutions are busy ‘empowering’ the grassroots, establishing micro finance, strengthening local governance or ‘delivering development’, the organised macro economic and political powers continue to play their power games of macro finance, macro economics and national, international and global governance. They capture markets, natural resources or countries through laws, advertising campaigns, finance capital markets or bombs as and when they like! While every good soul seems to be focusing on the grassroots and local development or empowerment, the rich and powerful seem to be busy capturing markets, consumers and governments.

The logic of this neat division of politics and finance into micro and macro often helps to sustain and strengthen hegemonic and unjust power relationships that perpetuate impoverishment, inequality and injustice. While civil society organisations can claim the ethical or political high ground, they simply fail to influence anything about the war in Iraq or the policies of the World Bank or IMF or for that matter the nature and character of a coercive State, whether in Ethiopia or Zimbabwe or the USA.

So micro finance looks good as long as you ignore the macro finance which drives it. So we can celebrate Grameen and forget about Citibank or American Express or finance capital markets. Micro enterprises look good as long as you ignore macro economics; local governance is a favoured option as long as national and global governance continues unchallenged as the terrain of the political and technocratic elite. While influencing micro power relations and micro politics is a worthwhile effort, it is also a means of creating and sustaining delusions of power when macro politics and macro economics are left to control and manipulate power in business corporations, rich countries and their institutions.

The fact of the matter is that in spite of years of community mobilisation and grassroots empowerment and local governance in many of the countries of Asia (Thailand, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and to some extend Nepal), macro politics is often shaped by a mix of larger political forces and interest groups along with the coercive power of the army. Most of the countries in Africa and Latin America also show the same pattern. In the so-called democracies of Europe and America too the situation is more or less the same. In spite of all efforts, it is State power that decided to launch a preemptive and disastrous war in Iraq.

This is not to argue that micro politics or micro power is not important. On the contrary, micro power and micro politics are very crucial for individual empowerment and women’s empowerment at the level of family, community and local power relations. Indeed, transforming micro politics and the injustice that is embedded in gender relations and challenging feudal power structures and historical marginalisation require change in unjust and unequal relationships within the family and communities. However, the problem is that larger power structures, political forces and corporate interests are so organised in terms of their interests, networks and control over the institutions and interests of the military, market and media. The institutionalised power of macro politics can make the power of micro politics redundant in the larger power play. One of the key reasons for this is that micro politics is most of the time dispersed, disorganised and disoriented in the larger context of the political economy of power and institutions. Hence, micro politics do not translate into collective power that can challenge and change macro power and the institutions that control and reproduce such macro power and macro economies. The key reason for this is the hegemonic power paradigm that influences and shapes power relations.

At any given point of time there is a hegemonic power paradigm that operates through the political economy of institutions, interests, knowledge, technology and State. Even morality and moral tools like human rights are often defined by the political economy of the hegemonic power paradigm. Hence a moral tool like human rights is often misused in the most immoral way by those who control the power paradigm. This paradigm is still controlled by the power of military, media and markets and sustained by the State and its various institutions at the national and international level. While such a power paradigm gives incremental space to civil society or civil society organisations or social movements or NGOs (in the name of human rights or democracy) to influence public policies, this ‘invited’ or ‘designed’ space is largely within the hegemonic power paradigm. That is why such efforts have to depend largely on the goodwill of the media or institutions of the State in spite of and irrespective of their moral and political claims on behalf of the poor or citizens. In fact, one can argue that even such ‘invited spaces’ are little more than accommodative arrangements to create delusions of power for civil society.

Even international campaigns initiated by civil society or INGOs to challenge the politics of the State and market largely depend on the highly corporatised media for attention and legitimacy. Often anything that happens in cities such as Washington, New York, London or Brussels qualifies an action as ‘global’. Anything that appeared on BBC or CNN is ‘global’. Any book that is published in London or New York or reviewed in Time or Newsweek or Economist is supposed to have ‘global’ influence. Any theory or knowledge that is manufactured or processed in the Northern universities or think-tanks is supposed to have ‘global significance’. By the same token cities of the South, knowledge from the South and the media in the South are still ‘local’ or ‘national’. This too creates a false sense of power based on the location and delusions of power. Little wonder then that even civil society or NGO campaigns are vulgarised into cheap media stunts, high-profile seminars and communication circuses in the Northern cities (privileged by the hegemonic power paradigm), based more on brand- building and less on mobilising or transforming political power or power relationships at the micro or macro level.

We must understand the character and nature of the hegemonic power paradigm and challenge and change the very paradigm of the 3 Ms (Military, Media and Market) to reclaim the State as well as governance for the people and the billions of poor and excluded both in rich and poor countries. This requires a much more nuanced understanding about the uses and abuses of power and a political strategy based on a long-term approach to the power paradigm as well as social transformation.

Power is a contested concept, as much as it is about contestations. Power is also a very slippery notion, with multiple manifestations, processes and histories. The notions of ‘Power over’, ‘Power to’, ‘Power within’ and ‘Power with’ often capture different dimensions and modes through which power operates, transforms and manifests itself. Power can have both positive and negative connotations. Power can be visible or hidden. It can have symbolic as well as institutional dimensions. Power is often negotiated through and by different social, political, economic and institutional dimensions as well as through cultural, historical and technological modes. The questions are how power is derived, how it is used, how it is manifested and how it is reproduced or regenerated. The ‘how’ aspect of power is often more important than the ‘what’ and ‘why’ aspects.

Power can manifest itself in terms of aesthetics, coercion, consensus, control or networks. The power to create can in many ways signify the primordial notion of power and often the very basis of the omnipotence of the notion of God is derived from the ‘power to create’. Later on, religions as formal institutions transformed this ‘creative power’ to the ‘power to control’. Power can be termed the process, instruments and ability to create, communicate, choose, decide, influence, convene, sustain, control and destroy. Power has an individual as well as institutional dimension. The personal is indeed political. However, it is the institutions of family, religion, State and market that often define, sustain and reproduce power relationships. Often such institutions legitimise the ‘control’ and ‘coercive’ aspect through ‘power over’. Patriarchy is the most manifested form of power as control. Power is often derived from and through guns as well as gender; books as well as battalions; ethics as well as economics; religions as well as rockets; tactics as well as technology; liberty as well as law; love as well as language; crime as well as punishment; people as well as profits; media as well as mediation; war as well as peace; values as well as visions; community as well as creativity; advocacy as well as armies; missionaries as well as markets and democracy as well as desires. In fact, a hegemonic power paradigm operates through the control of all these modes as well as expressions of power. It operates through the control and coordination of the military, law and order, technology and even the political economy of desire (the manufacturing of new desires and demands through advertisements), democracy (by corporate funding of political parties and political elites), human rights and civil society initiatives (either through State patronage of development aid or through corporate funding). Hence the Knowledge of Power is as important as the Power of Knowledge.

The delusions of power through individual empowerment or through the empowerment of the consumer to choose, through the empowerment of local governance or through the ‘invited’ space for civil society, can give a false sense of hope about the whole project of development and human rights. It is far less complicated to address the micro dimension of power. Hence, the hegemonic power paradigm (which is patriarchal in nature) will not have much of a problem initiating affirmative action in favour of women’s political participation and leadership in local self-government. This is the same for other excluded groups. However, there is tremendous resistance to allocation of 30% or 40% of seats in a nation’s parliament for women or excluded sections.

It is the same with NGOs. As long as NGOs are small and beautiful, the hegemonic power paradigms of the State or market will not have any problem supporting micro credit or micro enterprises. The fact of the matter is that most NGOs or Civil Society Organisations derive power from their institutional sources and through communicative action based on moral premises. However, the very institutional and communicative sources are often located on the periphery of the State, market and media. This is true of fundraising as well as of media strategies. Such a sense of power derived through institutions, networks, communicative action, knowledge and technology can be effective to a certain extent at the very grassroots level through community mobilisation or delivery of the service. With the advent of information and communication technology and media-driven campaign strategies, they may also have a visible presence or profile at the global level. But such presence and ‘invited spaces’ do not necessarily mean the power to influence or change. Because of the very character and nature of the institutional premises, located in markets as well as in the periphery of the State, many such initiatives can at best be progressive reformism or token instrumentalism. Hence, unless such Civil Society Organisations think of a new political strategy as well as political theory and praxis of action at all levels of micro and macro power relationships, the chances of transforming the hegemonic power paradigm are few. In fact, after 25 years, many of the present local and ‘global’ initiatives for change may prove redundant. Many of these small and beautiful efforts and institutions may very well be swallowed by the beasts of market and State.

In fact the major challenge for the present hegemonic power paradigm comes from the emergence of postmodern identity politics. The notion of ‘class’ is getting increasingly mixed with ‘identity’. Unprecedented urbanisation, migration, inequality, combined with the new markers of identity based on location, religion and ethnicity can unleash new political forces that can subvert the present state of the hegemonic power paradigm. This can very well be reactionary political forces as distinct from a progressive or transformative political force. The new identity politics has individual, micro and macro dimensions as well as the subversive capacity through new forms of military action and terror tactics. This poses a great challenge to both the beauty and the beast.

At the moment the beauty and the beast seem to have established a complacent and conciliatory relationship based on mutual benefit and the desire for self-preservation. Such a complacent coexistence of the beauty and the beast creates the delusion of power as well as development as the beast is busy bombing the lives and livelihoods of the people. However, the new identity politics and the new hegemonic power paradigms at the global, national and international level may rock the applecart. The beast may change colour and even language. It may shift its primary location from Washington to elsewhere. However, the beauty cannot afford to be complacent with ‘micro’ power. There is indeed a need to create something big as well as beautiful that is relevant at the local, national and international level.

There is a need for a new renaissance and a new flowering of creativity in the form of new poetry, cultural expression and politics to build a new aesthetics of power and empowerment that can be relevant both at the micro and macro level. Small may be beautiful. But all beautiful things do not necessarily need to be small -- particularly when there is a beast that can easily swallow the small beauties of civil society at their convenience for either breakfast or dinner. We need to outgrow the delusions of power and confront the hegemonic power paradigm by creating new sources of power and politics, through broad-based mobilisations, new forms of communicative actions, new forms of local and international alliances, new forms of knowledge creation, distribution and reproduction and new forms of democratisation. We need a new imagination to go beyond the three-year project cycles or five-year thematic strategies of ‘empowerment’ to build a new vision for a new world -- a just and joyful world -- through new actions and through innovative institutional approaches. Delusions of power lead to delusions of development. And such frustrations may lead development actors to go in search of new approaches and strategies for poverty eradication, without being able to challenge and change the hegemonic power paradigms that perpetuate inequality, injustice and consequent impoverishment.

This piece was first published in InfoChange News & Features, June 2007

* John Samuel is a human rights activist and is currently International Director of Actionaid, based in Bangkok.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

"One of the key predicaments of the ongoing social and political transition in the world today is the subversion of language and ideas to create political smoke screen or delusion or to give a semblance of social and political legitimacy for the hegemonic discourse.” John Samuel argues that the use of the term Civil Society is being used as a smokescreen to give “social and political legitimacy for the hegemonic discourse".

Words are like flowers. Flowers have their own colour, texture and smell. Not every kind of flower blooms in every climate or soil. It's the same with words. Their colour, texture, smell and meaning arise organically from a particular socio-historical and cultural milieu. When demand exceeds the supply of flowers, there arises a market for manufactured flowers. Plastic flowers need neither soil nor climate; they transcend space and time. They may sometimes look like the real thing. But they can never feel like the real thing.

So it is with words in the postmodern condition. There are all too many plastic words, good for decoration and intellectual pleasantries, and little else. One of the key predicaments of the ongoing social and political transition in the world today is the subversion of language and ideas to create political smoke screen or delusion or to give a semblance of social and political legitimacy for the hegemonic discourse. Often progressive-sounding words and phrases are used to conceal the reality on the ground or to create a virtual or projected sense of select images and discourse. The reshuffling of meanings and the subversion of political semantics has become the order of the day. This has become a part of process of creating the new pornography of politics. The very term Civil Society is major protagonist in the post-modern politics of delusive power-plays and elusive semantics. They together often create political and policy mirages.

The term ‘Civil Society’ is contested terrain. Over the last fifteen years it has been used to denote everything from citizens’ groups and activist formations to highly institutionalized non-governmental organisations and foundations. There is another dimension to this process of subversive politics of words from the point of view of the history ideas and the political economy of knowledge.

Civil society as a concept originated in 18th-century Western Europe. It was a theoretical construct useful in analyzing and understanding the emerging socio-political economy of the industrialized west in the 18th and 19th centuries. The concept was resurrected in the late-'80s amidst the ruins of the authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe. It was born-again in the manufacturing shops neo-democratization ventures in the North. During the second coming of the concept, more stress was laid on producing and marketing the civil society in different colours and shapes, rather than on reflecting the very validity of the idea in relation to real-life situations and experiences. The civil society is being paraded as the new panacea for issues such as poverty, human rights, gender equity and `good governance'.

What is this civil society all about? Whose civil society are we talking about? There is no one answer or even set of answers. The colour and smell of the term will change according to the convenience of the various proponents. As a result of such ambivalence, the second coming of the civil society conceals more than it reveals. Civil society, we are told, is synchronous with democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, good governance and opportunity for economic growth. But what do all these goodies entail? Whose democracy? Whose freedom of expression and choice are we talking about?

The new holy trinity of the State, Market and Civil Society can be capable of concealing the structural inequalities, marginalization and patriarchy, and reduces complex reality into neat spaces. There is an underlying tendency to homogenize the world according to an idealized notion of governance that skips the entire historical process of marginalization and unequal distribution of power in the socio-economic and political arena. The problem with such an ahistorical theorization is that anything and everything outside the market and the State can be considered civil society. So the Islamic Taliban, Sangh Parivar in India and all such fundamentalist formations as well as small self-help groups, neighborhood associations or professional groups can be considered part of civil society. A mega-million non-profit organisation with huge corporate structures and tens of thousand of staff or a mega billion Foundation is as much part of civil society as a small NGO or a small community organisation. This is an interesting logic wherein sharks, sardines and shrimps all say we are fish, though the sharks would like the freedom to swallow sardines and other small fish.

This nebulous concept had its origin in western political theory. The pre-18th century concept emerged in the tradition of Aristotle, Cicero and modern natural law. Till the 18th century, civil society was considered "a type of political association which placed its members under the influence of laws and ensured peaceful order and good government". The discourse on civil society took a critical turn in the 18th century, as a corollary to the discourse on emerging capitalism as well as liberal democratic movements. The ambivalence of this concept is partly because it was an analytical tool used by both the proponents and critics of modern capitalism. On the one hand it served as a convenient tool to legitimize the market outside the sphere of an authoritarian and mercantile State and on the other; it was a tool to rationalize the sphere of individuals and associations to assert their freedom and rights.

One can see three broad varieties of definitions and interpretations of this term. There is a tradition that can be traced back to John Locke, Thomas Paine and De Tocqueville -- the liberal tradition. Though there are differing nuances within this tradition, one of the significant aspects is that civil society is considered a `natural condition' for freedom, and a legitimate area of association, individual action and human rights. Thus the notion of civil society came to be seen in opposition to the State: it allowed space for democracy and the growth of markets.

The classical political economy tradition of civil society emanated from the works of Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith and J S Mill. This stream of thinking perceived civil society as a sphere for the satisfaction of individual interests and private wants. This perspective stressed the primacy of individualism, property and the market. The third stream of civil society discourse can be traced back to Hegel, Marx, Gramsci and Habermass. This stream can be seen as a critique of the liberal and classical political economy tradition. This perspective interpreted civil society as a historically-produced sphere of life rather than the natural condition of freedom. This tradition questioned the notion of an idealized civil society and recognized the internal contradictions and conflict of interests within civil society. For Hegel, civil society was sandwiched between a patriarchal family and the universal State. Though Hegel questioned the idealized notion of civil society, he tended to idealize a universal State. By challenging the idealization of both State and civil society, Marx argued that the contradictions within civil society are reproduced within the State. For Marx, the State is not merely an external force that confronts civil society, but the reflection of it, wherein different interest groups penetrate the State to rule. Both Hegel and Marx pointed out the role of the elite in defining the character of civil society. Gramsci emphasized civil society as the realm of public opinion and culture. It is the public sphere where hegemony is created through consent and coercion.

In the second coming of the civil society in the late-'80s and through the '90s, the predominant trend has been a resurrection of the tradition of Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith, with a doze of De Tocqueville's liberalism. The new civil society discourse is often misused as a poaching ground by the New Right to rationalise and legitimize the privatization of the public services and to reduce the State as a support mechanism to the market.

The other part of the story is that the Civil Society is also being used to denote new democratization, grassroots politics and new way for citizens’ participation and engagement in the process of governance and affairs of the state. While the term Civil Society has broader social and political connotations, the tendency is often to equate the Civil Society with NGOs. The very world of NGOs themselves are very heterogeneous and with multiple institutional, social and funding power relations at play. The NGO world is increasingly looking like an Orwellian Animal Farm, wherein everyone is supposed to be equal but some are more equal than others. This becomes all the more problematic given that many of the new-generation NGOs are more like private enterprises in the public domain. The problem occurs when such groups or entities develop a universalistic claim based on an imagined or assumed legitimacy.

The various political and knowledge traditions behind the term Civil Society co-exit w and often intermingle to create new sense and meaning to the term civil society. This often makes the concept fluid and ambivalent.

The new civil society discourse is also a symptom of the crisis in social theorization. Instead of looking for fresh theories to address the profound socio-political and economic transition, the tendency is to resurrect concepts and theoretical frameworks from the residue of the Enlightenment in the 18th century...

We are in the transitory phase of a new epoch. The notions of nation-state, market, civil society, reason and progress that emerged during the Enlightenment are beginning to get transformed. In the new paradigm shift, we once again go back to the lived experiences of communities and individuals to search for new ways of looking at the transition of the world. We need a new language, a new set of insights and a fresh sense of humility to look at our past, present and future. What we need is to rediscover ethical communities within our societies and the world. We can still question injustice or rights violations based on the whole range of humanizing ethical traditions.

When we have the potential to grow our own beautiful flowers and organic words, why must we be deluded by plastic flowers and words?

* John Samuel is a human rights activist and is currently International Director of Actionaid, based in Bangkok.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org