On democracy and development

Democracy and development are both terms in vogue. It is almost taken for granted that Sri Lanka has entered a new phase of development. Relative to the immediate past or the period in which the country was engulfed in a fratricidal war, the period that is current have to be rebuilt or repaired. In that sense the current phase has nothing but development on its agenda.

Development, however, has many meanings and definitely different meanings to different social strata and social classes. There are also different paths and criteria of development. It is here that democracy comes in for what is essential is not development per se but development with democracy.

There is democracy and democracy, said Lenin. He meant that different people and different social classes perceive democracy differently. What is democratic for one would not be democratic for the other. For example privatization of State enterprises is considered the exercise of the freedom of the entrepreneur, a high tenet of neo-liberal democracy. The workers and trade unions at those enterprises view it differently, as a threat to their job security and welfare.

Development could be achieved under diverse dispensations. Certain countries under military rule such as Pinochet's Chile developed the economy under neo-liberalism and showed impressive growth of the GDP. Yet that development was associated with widespread suppression of people's rights and a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.

Neo-liberalism has been associated with more authoritarian regimes. Though they have recorded economic gains the beneficiaries were mostly the wealthy classes with the lot of poor worsening day by day. Egypt and Tunisia had both shown impressive economic growth though popular revolts had overthrown the regimes in both countries. Even Libya which had taken a different path to development had impressive economic gains. Yet popular discontent had grown.

What is required is not development per se but development with equity. If the latter is lacking it will lead to social unrest. Hence the emphasis on equity as an essential component of development. Equity or the lack of it becomes prominent in the redistribution of social wealth though the nature of ownership of the means of producing that wealth is the root cause of the distribution pattern.

This fact is acknowledged by bourgeois critics who lament that the benefits of development has not 'trickled down' to the masses. The use of the phrase 'trickle down' shows nothing more is expected and that the major share should go to someone else.

If development is to be meaningful to the masses it should produce a tangible improvement in the lives of the masses. It is here economic indices such as the GDP could be deceptive. The GDP per capita, for example, hides social inequalities and could be far off from the reality. That is why many scholars now resort to the new index of Human Development to measure development.

For development to take place the purchasing power of the people should remain high. If it goes below a certain level and social wealth accrues excessively at the pole of the rich the economy would collapse for the goods produced would not be sold. No regime could sustain itself without guaranteeing the basic needs - food, clothing and shelter, etc., to the mass of the people. That is why countries such as ours need a path of democratic development which is pro-poor and pro-people. It is not enough to subsidize the entrepreneurs and guarantee them against vagaries of the market, local and foreign. It is also necessary to guarantee a minimum living standard for the poor from the shocks of ever escalating prices and other ills that affect them more severely just because they are poor.

Sri Lanka is facing a demographic revolution where the aged or those above 60 years of age would increase to about one third of the population in a few decades. The situation could worsen if malnutrition that is now widespread even among some affluent groups is not curtailed. Now that the war is over non-communicable diseases and malnutrition have become the debilitating factors. The development paradigm we advocate must find a solution to this severe problem. It is a moot point to what extent the private sector, the so-called engine of growth would be committed to such a solution.

Obviously the future labour force need to be more productive. This could be brought about only through higher technology. Have the authorities realized this need?