One encounters enormous power and influence in gatherings like Davos, but a new forum must emerge, to focus on actions dealing with the next quarter century and not merely the next quarter of profits for business
January is the month when the rich and mighty of the world descend on that ski resort in Switzerland called Davos. Not because those who congregate there are avid participants of the winter sport of skiing — not many who are seen in their heavy winter wear can even bend to touch their toes at their sporty best — but because they want to be seen and heard among the beautiful people who congregate there.
This plays well back home, and is a major boost to the ego of each participant. This year’s major newsmaker was Chinese President Xi Jinping, who voiced strong support for globalisation and its all round benefits. Many other world leaders, who have been regulars at Davos, were conspicuous by their absence. A timely article in the magazine Foreign Policy is, perhaps, right on target with its title ‘Davos Man Has No Clothes’, and the caption ‘The World Economic Forum’s annual celebration of global capitalism once represented the inevitable arc of human progress. No longer.’
In actual fact, the most significant message coming from Davos this year was not from anyone in the community represented by the Davos man, a term first used by Samuel Huntington, but from the global NGO, Oxfam. The report released by Oxfam, appropriately in Davos, highlighted the fact that eight individuals in the world owned as much wealth as the 3.6 billion people who mark the poorest half of the world’s population.
Does this ring some alarm bells in IndiaIJ Are we heading in the same direction in this country, if we are not there alreadyIJ Quite apart from the ethical and moral issues that this deplorable state of political and economic “progress” of humanity represents, what are its implications for the future of governance in the worldIJ Would this not lead to an unhealthy influence of the rich and powerful on Government policies and decision-making, to the exclusion of the interests of the poor and deprivedIJ
In a statement issued by Oxfam on January 16, it was mentioned “Oxfam’s report, ‘An economy for the 99 per cent’, shows that the gap between rich and poor is far greater than had been feared. It details how big business and the super rich are fuelling the inequality crisis by dodging taxes, driving down wages and using their power to influence politics. It calls for a fundamental change in the way we manage our economies so that they work for all people, and not just a fortunate few.”
The reference to dodging taxes is significant given the success of some politicians who have declined to reveal their tax returns and have obviously pursued a bigoted philosophy of narrow self-interest. Apologists for the current state of capitalism have responded to the Oxfam report by asserting that tens of millions have been lifted out of poverty by capitalism. No doubt the trickle down theory of economic growth can be seen to have achieved this by capitalist policies in many parts of the world, including the supposedly communist state of China, but have we really looked at alternatives to crony capitalismIJ
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and former US President Bill Clinton articulated their own version of a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, which was certainly a distinct improvement over rigidly socialistic policies and crass capitalism without a human face.
And indeed what has been practiced in the Nordic countries for years now is a remarkable blend of capitalist enterprise, which promotes innovation and success in business, with social services and a safety net which assures the poorer sections of society a secure existence when they need help on a rainy day. Each country, including India, needs to define the form of development which is best suited to its inherent conditions.
In India, we are yet to develop a system that ensures efficiency and equity in all aspects of economic growth and development. One major system that has not been given full play is the cooperative movement, which has been stymied by an intrusive system of controls and bureaucratic strangulation, thus not giving this system space for reaching anywhere close to its full potential.
It required a Verghese Kurien to battle the system and make a resounding success of the cooperative movement in the dairy sector, the fruits of which we are all benefiting from today. Kurien, however, remains an unsung hero, whose contribution to this country’s progress has not been acknowledged, much less rewarded.
With so many questionable choices of the Bharat Ratna award in recent times, one is saddened by the neglect of Kurien’s credentials for this well deserved honour. The white revolution, which represents his blazing success as an innovator and manager, was a remarkable example of an achievement in development which attained unprecedented levels of economic efficiency and equitable benefits for the smallest producer.
At the aggregate level, Kurien’s genius for thinking out-of-the-box and dogged determination resulted in a milk deficient nation becoming the largest producer of milk in the world and doubling of per capita availability of milk and milk products within three decades. Unfortunately, we did not learn enough from this remarkable success story to be able to replicate it effectively in other sectors by giving it adequate space and freedom and allowing non-bureaucratic leadership to pave the way.
But, returning to Davos, the time has come for an alternative forum to emerge, where the intellectual, business and political leadership of the world can come up with changes in direction, which address the dangers of today’s terribly lopsided and inequitable growth and the infirmities of a system which is leading to the frightening dangers of climate change and all round damage to the earth’s ecosystems.
I personally had the opportunity of speaking at the opening of Davos in 2008 along with the then President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and have been there earlier on a few occasions to speak at many of the events which take place.
One encounters enormous power and influence in that gathering, but it would perhaps take a totally different forum to harness that power to focus on actions dealing with the next quarter century and not merely the next quarter of profits for business. And for dealing with the time bomb and inhuman process of benefits for a few and deprivation of the many!
Token reference in that setting to the global challenges to the future of humanity and this planet are no substitute for a brand new institution, which provides a platform for responsible debate and action.
(The writer is a formerchairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-2015)