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