Do we need socialism?

Do we need socialism? By Sauvik Chakraverti

Socialism was inserted into the preamble of the Constitution in 1976. It infiltrated into the Representation of the People Act, by which all political parties are made to swear by socialism in order to be eligible to participate in the electoral fray. At stake is the idea of a truly liberal party based on individualism and private property -- the very antithesis of socialism. A liberal party opposed to socialism must be allowed to attract the mind of the smart Indian voter, writes Sauvik Chakraverti in the New Indian Express

A constantly moving target is difficult to shoot. But shoot it we must. I refer to the word ‘socialism’, which was inserted into the preamble of the Constitution; and the subsequent infiltration of this term into the Representation of the People Act, by which all political parties are made to swear by socialism in order to be eligible to participate in the electoral fray. At stake is the idea of a truly liberal party based on individualism and private property -- the very antithesis of socialism.

 

But what is socialism? Is it the ‘commanding heights of the economy’ that Nehru ascended? Is it the empire of PSUs that no party wants to privatise? Is it the contempt for private enterprise and private property? Apparently, it is none of these things anymore. The Supreme Court has found yet another definition of socialism — a definition that has serious implications for our future. If this new definition goes unchallenged, socialism will be perpetuated; simultaneously, liberalism will be barred.

On January 9, 2008, while dismissing a petition challenging the legislation that makes it mandatory for every ‘recognised’ political party to swear by socialism, the Chief Justice of K G Balakrishnan, asked counsel Fali S Nariman: “Why do you define socialism in the narrower sense as the Communists do? Why don’t you go by the broader definition… which mandates the state to ensure social welfare measures for all the citizens… as a facet of democracy?”

There is an ever-present danger with Supreme Court: that it will act in ways that preserve the government, of which they are a part. Indira Gandhi called her judges ‘a committed judiciary’, and it seems they are indeed still committed to her political ideals. An entirely new judicial definition of the dreaded word has been established: one that ‘mandates the state to ensure social welfare measures for all the citizens, as a facet of democracy.’ Justice Balakrishnan wants ‘welfare for all the citizens’ — but that must be over-enthusiasm for his cause. What he probably means is welfare for the really deserving poor.

Classical liberals of 18th and 19th century Europe and America would be horrified by the idea of a ‘welfare state as a facet of democracy.’ To them, the great idea wasLiberty for all — especially the poor. It was held that people are diversely gifted and only in a liberal, free market order could each find his ‘just deserts.’ And since that is a competitive struggle for all, along with Liberty came Self-Help. Samuel Smiles’ eponymous volume was a classic of its times, selling 20,000 copies in its first year alone. Self-Help was kept next to the Bible in every Victorian home, an aspect of Victorian morality all too easily forgotten today, thanks to welfare statism in the west, and its culture of dependency. (Incidentally, Liberty Institute has republished the book in India.)

Liberty and Self-Help were the two pillars of classical liberalism, especially among the poor. That is why the first ‘mass movement’ in British history was the one for free trade in the 1830s, led by Richard Cobden and his Manchester Free Trade League, in which the working classes eagerly participated. Socialism was not even on the horizon then.

The ‘welfare state’ is a product of the 20th century, that too, after the second World War. It has indeed become a ‘facet of democracy’ in several western nations, but not a good facet. The welfare state is the darling of ‘tax-borrow-print-and-spend politics’ that is funded by Keynesian fiat money, that sustains a vast ‘spending bureaucracy’ and subsidises an underclass that is increasingly work-resistant. Yet, even in these countries, there are parties and political leaders that oppose welfare statism — like the Tories did under Margaret Thatcher. In a truly liberal order, it is unthinkable that every party must swear by the welfare state. But the situation in India is far worse, and there are good reasons to believe that the Chief Justice’s conception of a good society, if ever allowed to come into fruition, will spell disaster for the nation and its people.

Writing in the 1950s, the great dissenting development economist, Peter, Lord Bauer, said that widespread beggary on the streets of India and Pakistan is not a sign of poverty; rather, it exists because the dominant communities in both these countries, Hindus and Muslims respectively, believe they earn spiritual merit when they offer alms to beggars. In the very same countries there are large communities like the Parsees, Sikhs and Jains who practice charity differently among themselves — and produce no beggars. A ‘welfare state’ of the kind contemplated by the learned CJI would cause beggary in India to multiply thousand-fold.

What is the best way to help the deserving poor? When I ask this question during seminars, I offer students three choices: First, take direct action and give alms to every beggar you come across. Second, pay taxes to the government and ask the government to help the poor. And third, donate to a good charity organisation like Mother Teresa’s and ask them to use that money to help the poor. Even kids of Class 5 decide that the third option is the only doable one. To liberals, charity must be private.

In India, what keeps people poor are stupid policies — and all these policies are the product of ‘socialism’, however defined. The new definition will lead to the perpetuation of our ‘spending bureaucracy’, without any benefit to the poor. For real progress, Indianeeds the classical emphasis on Liberty and Self-Help —and well-directed private charity.

If an example of an Asian country is required that prospered immediately upon embracing these principles, it is Japan after 1868: the Meiji era. Samuel Smiles’ Self-Help was translated into Japanese then, and widely read. It convinced the ordinary Jap that with Liberty all he needed to add was sincere, individual effort. And every Jap worked hard; their work-ethic is the stuff of legend. The populous little nation flourished and became an inspiration for all of Asia. The Japs have never embraced socialism. It is still Liberty and Self-Help in the Land of the Rising Sun.

If India is to regain her lost glory, socialism must be dumped and her people encouraged to help themselves. Indians are known to be hard working. The new definition of socialism offered by the CJI is patronising and impractical; and it will not lead to the ‘welfare’ of the poor. A liberal party opposed to socialism must be allowed to attract the mind of the smart Indian voter.

This article was published in the New Indian Express, on 16 February 2008. Please read the original article here.

Author : Mr Chakraverti is the author of Antidote and Antidote 2, and a columnist.

http://www.indefenceofliberty.org/story.aspx?id=967&pubid=681