'Good Society'

It now looks almost certain that the next general elections would be held by August 2018. The incumbent federal and provincial governments, therefore, have just about five months to complete their pet development projects before their dissolution.
If one were to go by what has been happening in this country since the 2008 general elections, corruption is likely to be the main topic of electoral debate during the electioneering phase.
All the three mainstream political parties - the PML-N, the PTI and the PPP - have enough real and imaginary skeletons in their cupboards to play to the gallery by hitting each other below the belt over the next six months.
And it looks none of these parties appears in a mood to talk about anything other than the symptom of a chronic disease - corruption - the causes of which lie somewhere else.
Both democracy and market economy are perhaps the most ideal systems in their respective genres. However, when you practice democracy without checks and balances and market economy without regulations you simply cannot keep corruption out. In fact, in such a situation corruption becomes an integral part of the system.
Indeed, democracy characterised by checks and balances guarantees political equality to each and every citizen of the country as no matter on which side of the economic divide one is located each one gets to vote having equitable political value.
Similarly, market economy characterised by regulations guarantees that the dividing gap between the haves and have-nots remains within a reasonable bandwidth.
However, when you practice a free-for-all kind of a market economy it does not take much time for economic inequality to set in leading to concentrating most of the national wealth in the hands of the few as the rest wallow in an expanding sea of poverty.
Corruption is the disease that our political parties need to tackle and draft manifestoes mainly targeting it rather than addressing its symptoms.
To begin with one must understand that continued faith in unregulated market economy, nicknamed the Washington Consensus, is more likely to end up threatening the very foundations of the state because why would any citizen of Pakistan, other than the few rich islands floating in a sea of poverty, feel a sense of belonging to the state if the state continues to fail in its basic responsibility of providing universal access to education, health and credit and continues to refuse affordable transport, communications and housing to its population.
An alternate model to the one designed by the Washington Consensus called the Economy of Tomorrow (EoT) is being promoted as a gateway to what is called the Good Society.
Our mainstream political parties need to incorporate this concept in their election manifestoes if they really want to get rid of the menace of corruption and reduce the growing inequality.
There is a consensus that the obsession with GDP growth leads to distortions and needs to be replaced with a qualitative growth paradigm. Growth is not an end in itself but a means to produce the conditions for a Good Society with full capabilities for all.
The experience of the past three decades shows that unfettered markets do not offer any solutions to ecological, economic and social challenges, but are part of the problem. The EoT rejects such blind faith in 'the magic of the market' and insists the grand direction of development must be determined by democratic deliberation. In order to achieve this, the relationship between the market and the democratic state needs to be rebalanced. In order to break the vicious cycle of debt and devaluation, the state needs to set a path towards restructuring the economy, inclusive distribution and stable investment allocation. In order to set a sustainable growth path, the state needs to regain confidence and policy space. The choice is no longer between a 'big' or 'small' state, but how to build a 'smart state' capable of preventing risk, correcting distortions and giving policy guidance.
In the neoliberal model, economic dynamism grows out of the incentives set by inequality and competition ('Greed is good'). In contrast, dynamic growth in the EoT model is driven by inclusiveness. All citizens must have access to education, health care and credit and must be able to start an enterprise. If citizens are challenged by nature or face discrimination due to their race, gender or religion, both the state and the private sector have an active role to play in removing these obstacles. By providing full capabilities for all, a society unleashes the full potential of all its citizens. The provision of public goods by the state not only strengthens consumption demand, but also increases labour productivity by improving the qualification and health of the workforce. Tapping into the innovative genius, creativity, entrepreneurial energy and talent of all people unleashes the full inclusive growth potential of a society.
Whilst democracy implies equality, hence the 'one man, one vote' principle, capitalism generates inequality as stated by Christian Krell (Has the left sold out? published in International Politics and Society, an FES newsletter dated December 15, 2017). Since its emergence in the 19th century, the political left has grappled with this fundamental tension.
"Around the turn of the century, social democratic parties across Europe started to realise that though they couldn't dispense with capitalism completely, they could mould it to a significant degree. The 'slow and steady' approach of Britain's Fabien Society helped cement this idea. Italian and French Socialists also played a role. In Germany, prominent thinkers such as Rudolf Hilferding and Eduard Bernstein sought to harness the productive powers of capitalism and counter its destructive propensity to create inequality.
"The idea soon took root in Scandinavia and later in other parts of Europe, especially after World War II with the emergence of market freedom on the one hand and relative social security and transfers on the other. The main instrument which enabled the system to work was the democratically governed nation state.
"German reunification, the emergence of neo-liberalism in the 1970s and 1980s and the appearance of new technologies saw a new form of capitalism come to the fore: authoritarian, global, digital capitalism. The balance of power between democratic politics and capitalism swung in favour of assertive, muscle-flexing capitalism. National protection mechanisms which had once ensured social security and equality gradually fell away.
"It wasn't just that European social democracy was unable to counter the ill-effects of capitalism. In the 1990s parties on the centre-left made a conscious decision to embrace the opportunities afforded by the new economy of the 'Third Way'. Embraced by the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and to a lesser extent by Germany's then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the Third Way was a political doctrine that aimed to benefit from free markets and privatisation, whilst still retaining centre-left social policies. Socially liberal, the movement emphasised equality of opportunity, diversity and cosmopolitan values.
"The logic behind this shift was two-fold: firstly, social democrats realised the forces of globalisation and international capitalism were unstoppable. Rather than rejecting these forces, the left would have to adapt to them. Secondly, it was hoped the free market would boost production to the extent that social prosperity and jobs for all would be a given.
"Social democratic parties broke with their decades-long stance of criticising capitalism and thus abandoned one of the main principles that separated them from the political right. Voters who didn't support the far left were left with parties who, to a greater or lesser extent, affirmed capitalism as opposed to critiquing it.
"Even after the economic and financial crisis of 2008, as neo-liberalism has come under increasing scrutiny, social democracy is still not seen as a force able to effectively take on unbridled capitalism - despite its 150 year heritage.
"This is especially serious at a time in which a new digital capitalism is sweeping the world. Across the globe, digital technologies inform almost all areas of life. A handful of monopolists are now taking decisions on the most important resources in society, the data. They seek profit above all else, and pay little heed to the societal consequences.
"Accelerated capitalism not only comes at a material cost for a significant proportion of the population in the form of real wage cuts, shrinking collective agreement coverage and more fragile labour relations. It's also led to whole swathes of society feeling insecure and undervalued. Sociologist Hartmut Rosa has observed a permanent sense of uncertainty and the feeling that people have lost control over their lives.
"Most people can no longer count on a 'job for life', and are expected to be more mobile and flexible in their working patterns than ever before. Those who live in a constant state of fear, feeling they must fight tooth and nail just to maintain their current status, are finding refuge in populist movements, which offer them a sense of identity (and of security - however illusory).
"Feeling you are powerless to determine the direction of your own life goes hand in hand with an inability to manage your own environment. Some sectors of society feel politics and politicians are no longer able or willing to respond to their needs. The political system does not resonate with the needs and demands of the citizens.
"Meanwhile, a combination of personal charisma and simplistic slogans has enabled right-wing populist leaders like Christoph Blocher in Switzerland, Marine Le Pen in France and Nigel Farage in the UK to convince many voters that only they have what it takes to evoke political change.
"Modern social democracy must go back to its roots and anchor itself in its opposition to capitalism, for the good of society as a whole. To do this, it needs to show citizens how it will empower them to influence the new societal challenges of globalisation and digitisation. Modern social democracy has to demonstrate how it can restore people's sense of security, value and the ability to make their own decisions in turbulent times such as these."