On living with and without the state
The role of the state in the amorphous and varied activity, process
and objective called ‘development’ has been the subject of many a
doctoral dissertation. The literature on the subject would fill quite a
large library, in fact. States are sometimes ‘interventionist’; they
have an overbearing presence in the affairs of a country, especially the
economy. Some argue that states should play the role of facilitator and
regulator (read ‘keep out of our hair’; ‘our’ referring to capital
interests).
States make their presence felt through tax regimes, regulatory
mechanisms and relevant enforcement authorities, the law etc. Some may
consider states to be a necessary nuisance; a pain because no one likes
rules and regulations but a useful player in keeping out anarchy. Good
to complain about.
Human beings are strange creatures. They want to be pampered and they
want something to complain about too; seldom content but frequently
agitated and unfulfilled, want to take but hate to give, will talk for
hours about rights but remain silent on responsibilities.
I’ve written about what an ungrateful bunch of citizens we are for
the most part. This is not to say that states are perfect or that
governments are made of principled men and women; they are not.
On the other hand, a citizenry that is pampered from womb to grave
must be possessed by a strange ingratitude to want and demand as it does
so frequently. States are not perfect, let me repeat. Governments are
about people with vested interests. The architecture of the state is
more or less designed to serve the interests of the more powerful
sections of society.
Those who rebel against the welfare state are often silent about the
fact that states typically serve capital interests and indeed to an
extent that makes amounts allocated to education and healthcare for the
poor look like a pittance.
I have begun to wonder why we tend to confuse ‘state’ with ‘saviour’.
It is not as though some people sat down one day and designed a
foolproof state to stand the test of time. It is a flawed edifice
because architect, engineer, resident and renovator are all frail human
beings. What this means is that there are things where we can wait on
the state only at our own peril.
Sometimes a tough, responsible and uncompromising consumer protection
movement can force institutions and officials to deliver (as per job
description) on the legitimate expectations of consumers and taxpayers.
Sometimes it is not enough.
We can complain about the inefficiencies of the Health Department and
the various local government authorities whose responsibilities include
effective and sustainable disposal of waste and the maintenance of
proper drainage systems, but if we do nothing ourselves we up the risk
of dying of diseases such as dengue. We can’t wait on the state. We
can’t expect consumer protection organizations to fall from the sky
either.
Organizing is not easy; takes time, effort, sacrifice and a lot of
disappointments. On the other hand, we can do the small thing; like we
all did when the entire country was facing a serious dengue threat. A
lot of people became aware of the threat thanks to the efforts of the
various state institutions including the media, but dealing with the
threat required citizens to take some initiative.
What is necessary in the case of dealing with communicable diseases
need not be put in cold story in other situations. If we can be
extra-responsible when there is a serious public health situation, we
can be mildly responsible in other situations too, can’t we? The state
cannot force the people not to use polythene or reuse and recycle.
Ordinary citizens can do all that and also do educate themselves about
basic conservation behaviour such as switching off unnecessary lights,
repairing a leaking faucet etc.
A spoilt citizenry can only spoil the nation and a spoilt citizenry
cannot demand that a Government remain squeaky clean. We can demand that
governments design policies that ensure national food security, but if
we don’t use whatever space we have to plant some chillies, gotukola,
capsicum or brinjals then we are being hypocritical, aren’t we? How can
be bad-mouth the municipal council for being inefficient in disposing
garbage if we are not conscious of how much unnecessary garbage we
produce by our ignorance and carelessness?
I remember visiting a friend in the Colombo National Hospital a
couple of years ago. My doctor friend had a task: to direct patients
referred to Colombo from hospitals in various parts of the country to
various wards as per their most serious complaint. It was around 9.30 pm
and there wasn’t exactly a rush of patients for him to handle. At one
point however there was a bit of excitement, or let’s say a sense of
urgency. A young woman was wheeled in. She had attempted to commit
suicide by swallowing sleeping pills. She was conscious but in great
physical distress.
My friend was not sympathetic. He told the patient that the next time
she wants to kill herself to take enough sleeping tablets because to
save her life now an enormous amount of money will have to be spent by
the state, money which could have been used to prevent diseases and cure
those who have fallen ill for no fault of theirs.
I asked him whether it was right to blast a patient like that. He
said ‘she will survive but I am furious because we are not a rich
country and we have to use our resources carefully’.
The bottom line: are we responsible citizens? What kind of polluting
signature do we leave on this Earth by the way we live, the things we
do, our vocation etc? What are we robbing from our children when we
choose to do this instead of that? Should we defer to the state because
we pay taxes and rates and leave it at that?
Let’s face it, states are imperfect. We can lament, we can scream or
we can do something about correcting the flaws of the state. In the very
least we can say ‘screw the state, let’s just live’. Well, ‘live more
responsibly’ would be the better option.
[email protected]
|