Wednesday, 27 September 2023

Narendra Modi's Decade in Power Has Brought a Shrinking Welfare Landscape to India


Narendra Modi's Decade in Power Has Brought a Shrinking Welfare Landscape to India

Economy
Declining allocations on social welfare spending, and neglect of existing schemes and programmes, underscore how welfare has come to be constrained in the past ten years.
Photo: Abhishek Kirloskar/Unsplash

This article is the third in a series on the state of the Indian economy co-curated by the Centre for Financial Accountability, New Delhi and The Wire. Read the first article here and the second here.

 Construction of Waterfalls in the building 350, फीट ऊंची इमारत से बह निकला झरना - Travel Nfx
01:44 / 03:02
Copy video url
Play / Pause
Mute / Unmute
Report a problem
Language
Share
Vidverto Player
While announcing the government’s disinvestment and monetisation of public assets plan in 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi famously said that ‘the government has no business to be in business‘. Instead, he contended, the primary role of the government was to ensure the welfare and development of its citizens. However, as we approach a decade under the BJP government’s rule, a stark disparity emerges between rhetoric and reality. Not only has the government assisted the rise of crony capitalists such as Adani – who has swiftly ascended to become one of the richest men in the world – but during this period there has been a discernible dismantling of the welfare and social security framework that provides socio-economic protection to crores of citizens.

Declining allocations on social welfare spending, and neglect of existing schemes and programmes, underscore how welfare has come to be constrained in the past ten years. These developments – along with the erosion of other democratic rights – raise profound concerns regarding the future of welfare rights in this country, which as pointed out by the prime minister himself, is the fundamental duty of the state.

The right to life with dignity

It is, in fact, the constitutional obligation and duty of the Indian State, under the directive principles of state policy and Article 21, to ensure and promote the right to a dignified life for all its citizens. The notion of dignity underscores the most important component of the right to life, therefore understanding this concept becomes critical to facilitate a holistic approach to development and welfare. The right to life with dignity should then be understood as a composite of a bundle of rights, that collectively work to ensure the realisation of this overarching objective. Within this framework, fundamental rights and duties such as the right to work, the right to food and nutrition, the right to education, and the right to social security become integral components towards fulfilling the broader aspiration of a meaningful existence. Recognising this also underscores the core essence of citizenship. As Niraja Jayal articulates it, “Full inclusion – civic, political, social, economic and cultural – is the condition of full citizenship.”

However, within the context of welfare today, this has been reduced to the struggle for basic survival. Political gimmicks like slashing the price of LPG every election cycle overshadow the lack of substantive and transformative interventions that can genuinely improve welfare. Through its policies and actions, this government has obfuscated the fundamental understanding of the state’s role in welfare that came to be realised in the decade prior.

Nine-year trend on social security expenditure and policy failures

Union Budgets serve as a window into the priorities of the government. Since FY 2014-15, there has been a 150.88% increase in the Union Budget outlay. However, during this period, the share of budget allocations dedicated to social security schemes, with the exception of COVID-19, in relation to the overall budget has seen a downward trend, with many schemes in the present budget receiving a smaller share of allocation than before the pandemic. Budgetary allocations over the last nine years for programmes such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP), programmes under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), and the National Health Mission (NHM) confirm this trend. Additionally, in many instances, budget allocations for social security schemes are less than the revised estimates from the previous year – signalling the gap between the financial requirement necessary to sustain these schemes and the actual allocation made by the government. Both the policy choices and fiscal actions of the government have significantly eroded social welfare.

The allocation made to MGNREGA, as a share of the overall budget, has declined from 1.85% in FY 2014-15 to 1.33% in FY 2023-24. This allocation is the lowest that has ever been made to the MGNREGA programme, which is an economic safety net for millions of poor. The budget estimates at Rs 60,000 crore in FY 2023-24 see a drastic 33% reduction from the revised estimates of Rs 89,400 crore in FY 2022-23. The World Bank recommends that for the programme to run effectively, the allocation for MGNREGA should be at least 1.6% of the total GDP, this figure currently stands at an appalling 0.198%. Additionally, a large share of the budget is used to clear pending liabilities of backlog wages to be paid to the states. Policy measures like the adoption of Aadhaar-based payment systems (ABPS) have resulted in digital ostracism of 57% workers. The NREGA mobile monitoring system serves as another example of the various exclusionary tactics used by the government to deter the programme, exposing a substantial portion of the rural workforce to financial vulnerability.

The budgetary allocation for NSAP has remained almost stagnant over the past nine years and declined in real terms. The percentage share of expenditure allocated in the overall budget has decreased from 0.58% in FY 2014-2015 to a mere 0.21% in the present budget. Even more concerning is that the entitlements received under the NSAP programme have remained unchanged since 2007 even as cost of living has surged ahead. A meagre sum of Rs 200-300 per month for the various pensions covered under the programme is nowhere adequate for an individual to survive. With the cost of living increasing, the failure to index pension amounts to inflation leaves around 3 crore individuals under the centrally sponsored scheme vulnerable.

(%) Share of allocation of the total budget outlay for NSAP, NREGA & NHM (Budget Estimate).

(See here for corresponding numbers and sources)

Worrying trends can also be observed under NFSA, which, through its various programmes, provides food security and nutrition to economically vulnerable households, women and children. With the exception of COVID-19, the percentage share of the budget allocated towards food subsidies has decreased from 6.4% in FY 2014-15 to 4.38% in FY 2023-24. Global Hunger Index rankings from 2022 show an upward trend in food insecurity with India ranking 107 out of 127 countries. Despite persisting food insecurity, the current budget has slashed food subsidies by over Rs 89,000 crore, even though the revised estimates for FY 2022-23 stood at Rs 2,87,642 crore. This reduction is primarily due to the discontinuation of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) in January 2023, which has resulted in a 50% reduction in ration entitlements for 81 crore people.

Other schemes under the NFSA, the Mid-Day-Meal Scheme, renamed PM Poshan in 2021, have seen a reduction in their share of allocation within the overall budget, decreasing from 0.73% of the total budget to 0.25% in FY 2023-24. The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), rebranded as Anganwadi Services in 2018 and merged into Saksham Anganwadi & POSHAN 2.0 in FY 2021-22, have seen an exponential decline in the budget allocated for these schemes. In FY 2014-15 (BE), the budget allocated exclusively to ICDS stood at Rs 18,691 crore compared to Rs 20,544 crore allocated for three schemes under Saksham Anganwadi & POSHAN 2.0 in the present budget. The share in the total budget for the aggregate schemes under Saksham Anganwadi & POSHAN 2.0 (ICDS/Anganwadi Services, National Nutrition Mission, National Creche Scheme and Scheme for Adolescent Girls/SABLA) has decreased from 1.08% of the total budget in FY 2014-15 to 0.45% in FY 2023-24. In the context of maternity entitlements, there has been a notable decrease in both the dedicated budget share and the overall allocation in the past four years, declining from 0.08% to 0.5% of the total budget. In FY 2017-18 (BE) and FY 2019-20 (BE), an allocation of Rs 2,700 crore and Rs 2,500 crore, respectively, was earmarked specifically for the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana. However, starting from FY 2021-22, when it was merged into the Samarthya programme alongside various other schemes, the total allocation for all initiatives under this umbrella amounted to only Rs 2,582 crore.

(%) Share of allocation of the total budget outlay for PDS/MDM/Saksham Anganwadi & POSHAN 2.0/ & PMVVY (Budget Estimate)

(See here for corresponding numbers and sources)

The health ministry’s total budget increased from Rs 89,251 crore in FY 2022-23 to Rs 92,803 in FY 2023-24. While the nominal amount increased by Rs 3,552 crore only but when adjusted to inflation, there is a 2% decline in real terms, and the share of the health budget in relation to the total budget declined from 2.46% in FY 2019-20 (Actuals) to of 2.08% in FY 2023-24 (BE). As a share of the GDP, the health budget declined from 0.35% to 0.31% – moving further away from the 2017 National Health Policy goal that seeks to raise the nation’s healthcare budget to 2.5% of the GDP.  The National Health Mission, encompassing two pivotal programmes, namely the National Rural Health Mission and the National Urban Health Mission, stands as a critical scheme to provide accessible and cost-effective healthcare services.

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, allocations to the NHM have experienced a consistent decline as a proportion of the total Union Budget, receding from 1.2% in FY 2014-15 to just 0.81% in FY 2023-24. While the out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) has declined from 62.6% in 2014-15 to 47.1% in 2019-20, the cost of health spending remains a significant burden for households, especially when private health services constitute nearly 70% of the health sector. Inadequate public health infrastructure and low insurance coverage are also growing concerns. Despite experiencing a substantial increase in allocations for sanitation and hygiene schemes over the past nine years, India still holds a relatively low position in the 2022 Environmental Performance Index, ranking 141 out of 180 countries on the drinking water scale and 138 out of 180 on the sanitation scale. Budget allocations for the Jal Jeevan Mission have increased from Rs 10,890 crore in FY 2014-15 (BE) to Rs 70,000 in the present budget, similarly, the budget for the Swachh Bharat Mission has also seen a notable increase. The government’s fixation on achieving one hundred per cent targets on paper while failing to deliver tangible results in practice is concerning.

Since FY 2014-15, the share of allocations made to the Department School Education and Literacy and the Department of Higher Education has consistently declined as a share of the overall budget since FY 2014-15, decreasing from 4.6 % to 2.5% in FY 2023-24. The current education budget is only 2.9% of the GDP, which is nowhere close to the 6% target stipulated by the National Policy on Education 1986. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, India witnessed a concerning trend in its education sector. The Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE+) report revealed a decline in the number of schools from 1,509,136 in 2020-21 to 1,489,115 in 2021-22, with 20,021 schools closing. This included 4,909 private schools. Simultaneously, the dropout rate among students in classes 1 to 8 nearly doubled compared to the previous year, indicating the far-reaching consequences of the pandemic on education, including both school closures and increased student dropouts. The proliferation of private schools following the New Education Policy 2020 has heightened concerns about unequal access to education and shrinking the responsibility of the government. ASER 2019 data reveals only 39% of girls and 47% of boys for 6 to 8 years have access to private schools, challenging the policy’s aim of improving education through private sector involvement.

Juxtaposing the Central Government’s spending of over Rs 4,000 crore on the beautification of New Delhi for the G20 Summit, with the outstanding due of Rs 6,366 crore in NREGA wages, alongside the displacement of lakhs of citizens, constructs a clear narrative of increasing social exclusion and economic marginalisation, that no amount of publicity or scaffolding can hide. The decreasing trajectory in social welfare expenditure, along with the government’s inclination towards an ‘ease of doing business’ approach, as evident in the most recent monsoon session where a plethora of pro-business and pro-corporate bills were passed, indicates the government’s long-term intent to reshape the character of the Indian State, where business, not people, are at the centre of the discourse.

India is currently at a juncture where challenges extend beyond welfare rights to include a growing threat to civil liberties. That the government continues to expand its discretionary powers, suppresses information through internet shutdowns and reduces the space for democratic protest to 500 metres, are, amidst others, indicators of a rapidly shrinking democracy. The last decade has stood witness to the fact that erosion of democracy is also the erosion of accountability, subverting accountability not only within the sphere of welfare but also the government’s accountability to the people. These changing circumstances force us to reckon with the potential future of both – welfare and democracy – and its implications on the broader questions of democratic governance, citizenship and the fundamental right of all citizens to live with dignity.

Asmi Sharma is with Jan Sarokar and Nancy Pathak is with the national finance team at Centre for Financial Accountability.

Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
//

Friday, 22 September 2023

Based on Prof Amartya Sen's essay DEMPCRACY AS A UNIVERSAL VALUE

 Democracy and Economic Development 

            (Based on Prof Amartya Sen's essay DEMPCRACY AS A UNIVERSAL VALUE).

 It is often claimed that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development. This belief sometimes goes by the name of "the Lee hypothesis," due to its advocacy by Lee Kuan Yew, the leader and former president of Singapore. He is certainly right that some disciplinarian states (such as South Korea, his own Singapore, and postreform China) have had faster rates of economic growth than many less authoritarian ones (including India, Jamaica, and Costa Rica). 


The "Lee hypothesis," however, is based on sporadic empiricism, drawing on very selective and limited information, rather than on any general statistical testing over the wide-ranging data that are available. A general relation of this kind cannot be established on the basis of very selective evidence. 

1. For example, we cannot really take the high economic growth of Singapore or China as "definitive proof" that authoritarianism does better in promoting economic growth, any more than we can draw the opposite conclusion from the fact that Botswana, the country with the best record of economic growth in Africa, indeed with one of the finest records of economic growth in the whole world, has been an oasis of democracy on that continent over the decades.


Botswana is one of the most economically developed and politically stable countries in Africa. It is classified as an upper-middle-income country by the World Bank, and has had a sustained record of economic growth since independence in 1966. Botswana is also a multi-party democracy with a strong tradition of peaceful elections.

In terms of economic development, Botswana ranks amongst the top 10 African countries on the Human Development Index, which measures a country's progress in terms of life expectancy, education, and income. Botswana also has one of the highest GDP per capita in Africa.

Botswana's political stability is also noteworthy. The country has never experienced a coup or civil war, and has held regular elections since independence. The ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) has been in power since independence, but there is a vibrant opposition scene and the country has a free press.

Here are some of the factors that have contributed to Botswana's economic development and political stability:

  • Sound economic management: Botswana has a history of prudent economic management, with low levels of inflation and debt. The government has also invested heavily in education and healthcare, which has helped to improve the standard of living for its citizens.
  • Political stability: Botswana has had a stable political system since independence. This has created a conducive environment for businesses to invest and grow.
  • Natural resources: Botswana is endowed with abundant natural resources, including diamonds, copper, and nickel. The government has used the revenue from these resources to invest in infrastructure and social programs.

However, Botswana also faces some challenges, such as a high unemployment rate and a reliance on diamonds for exports. The government is working to address these challenges by diversifying the economy and investing in job-creating sectors.

Overall, Botswana is a success story in Africa. It is a country with a strong economy, a stable political system, and a high standard of living.


 2.We need more systematic empirical studies to sort out the claims and counterclaims.  There is, in fact, no convincing general evidence that authoritarian  governance and the suppression of political and civil rights are really beneficial to economic development. Indeed, the general statistical picture does not permit any such induction. Systematic empirical studies (for example, by Robert Barro or by Adam Przeworski) give no real support to the claim that there is a general conflict between political rights and economic performance.

 3.The directional linkage seems to depend on many other circumstances, and while some statistical investigations note a weakly negative relation, others find a strongly positive one. If all the comparative studies are viewed together, the hypothesis that there is no clear relation between economic growth and democracy in either direction remains extremely plausible. Since democracy and political liberty have importance in themselves, the case for them therefore remains untarnished.  The question also involves a fundamental issue of methods of economic research. We must not only look at statistical connections, but also examine and scrutinize the causal processes that are involved in economic growth and development. 


4.The economic policies and circumstances that led to the economic success of countries in East Asia are by now reasonably well understood. While different empirical studies have varied in emphasis, there is by now broad consensus on a list of "helpful policies" that includes openness to competition, the use of international markets, public provision of incentives for investment and export, a high level of literacy and schooling, successful land reforms, and other social opportunities that widen participation in the process of economic expansion. There is no reason at all to assume that any of these policies is inconsistent with greater democracy and had to be forcibly sustained by the elements of authoritarianism that happened to be present in South Korea or Singapore or China.


5.Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence to show that what is needed for generating faster economic growth is a friendlier economic climate rather than a harsher political system. 


6. To complete this examination, we must go beyond the narrow confines of economic growth and scrutinize the broader demands of economic development, including the need for economic and social security. In that context, we have to look at the connection between political and civil rights, on the one hand, and the prevention of major economic disasters, on the other. Political and civil rights give people the opportunity to draw attention forcefully to general needs and to demand appropriate public action. The response of a government to the acute suffering of its people often depends on the pressure that is put on it. The exercise of political rights (such as voting, criticizing, protesting, and the like) can make a real difference to the political incentives that operate on a government. 


 I have discussed elsewhere the remarkable fact that, in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred [End Page 7] in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.4 We cannot find exceptions to this rule, no matter where we look: the recent famines of Ethiopia, Somalia, or other dictatorial regimes; famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; China's 1958-61 famine with the failure of the Great Leap Forward; or earlier still, the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule. China, although it was in many ways doing much better economically than India, still managed (unlike India) to have a famine, indeed the largest recorded famine in world history: Nearly 30 million people died in the famine of 1958-61, while faulty governmental policies remained uncorrected for three full years. The policies went uncriticized because there were no opposition parties in parliament, no free press, and no multiparty elections. Indeed, it is precisely this lack of challenge that allowed the deeply defective policies to continue even though they were killing millions each year. The same can be said about the world's two contemporary famines, occurring right now in North Korea and Sudan.  Famines are often associated with what look like natural disasters, and commentators often settle for the simplicity of explaining famines by pointing to these events: the floods in China during the failed Great Leap Forward, the droughts in Ethiopia, or crop failures in North Korea. Nevertheless, many countries with similar natural problems, or even worse ones, manage perfectly well, because a responsive government intervenes to help alleviate hunger. Since the primary victims of a famine are the indigent, deaths can be prevented by recreating incomes (for example, through employment programs), which makes food accessible to potential famine victims. Even the poorest democratic countries that have faced terrible droughts or floods or other natural disasters (such as India in 1973, or Zimbabwe and Botswana in the early 1980s) have been able to feed their people without experiencing a famine.  Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine, which I witnessed as a child, was in 1943, four years before independence), they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press.  I have discussed these issues elsewhere, particularly in my joint work with Jean Dr'eze, so I will not dwell further on them here.5 Indeed, the issue of famine is only one example of the reach of democracy, though it is, in many ways, the easiest case to analyze. The positive role of political and civil rights applies to the prevention of economic and social disasters in general. When things go fine and everything is routinely good, this instrumental role of democracy may not be particularly missed. It is when things get fouled up, for one [End Page 8] reason or another, that the political incentives provided by democratic governance acquire great practical value.  There is, I believe, an important lesson here. Many economic technocrats recommend the use of economic incentives (which the market system provides) while ignoring political incentives (which democratic systems could guarantee). This is to opt for a deeply unbalanced set of ground rules. The protective power of democracy may not be missed much when a country is lucky enough to be facing no serious calamity, when everything is going quite smoothly. Yet the danger of insecurity, arising from changed economic or other circumstances, or from uncorrected mistakes of policy, can lurk behind what looks like a healthy state.  The recent problems of East and Southeast Asia bring out, among other things, the penalties of undemocratic governance. This is so in two striking respects. First, the development of the financial crisis in some of these economies (including South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia) has been closely linked to the lack of transparency in business, in particular the lack of public participation in reviewing financial arrangements. The absence of an effective democratic forum has been central to this failing. Second, once the financial crisis led to a general economic recession, the protective power of democracy--not unlike that which prevents famines in democratic countries--was badly missed in a country like Indonesia. The newly dispossessed did not have the hearing they needed.  A fall in total gross national product of, say, 10 percent may not look like much if it follows in the wake of a growth rate of 5 or 10 percent every year over the past few decades, and yet that decline can decimate lives and create misery for millions if the burden of contraction is not widely shared but allowed to be heaped on those--the unemployed or the economically redundant--who can least bear it. The vulnerable in Indonesia may not have missed democracy when things went up and up, but that lacuna kept their voice low and muffled as the unequally shared crisis developed. The protective role of democracy is strongly missed when it is most needed.  

*******************************************************

      The Functions of Democracy  

         (Based on Prof Amartya Sen's essay DEMPCRACY AS A UNIVERSAL VALUE).

I have so far allowed the agenda of this essay to be determined by the critics of democracy, especially the economic critics. I shall return to criticisms again, taking up the arguments of the cultural critics in particular, but the time has come for me to pursue further the positive analysis of what democracy does and what may lie at the base of its claim to be a universal value.  


What exactly is democracy? 

1. We must not identify democracy with majority rule. 

2. Democracy has complex demands, which certainly  include voting and respect for election results. 

3. But it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements, and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news and fair comment. Even elections can be deeply defective if they occur without the different sides getting an adequate opportunity to present their respective cases, or without the electorate enjoying the freedom to obtain news and to consider the views of the competing protagonists.


4. Democracy is a demanding system, and not just a mechanical condition (like majority rule) taken in isolation.  


Viewed in this light, the merits of democracy and its claim as a universal value can be related to certain distinct virtues that go with its unfettered practice. Indeed, we can distinguish three different ways in which democracy enriches the lives of the citizens. 


(1) First, political freedom is a part of human freedom in general, and exercising civil and political rights is a crucial part of good lives of individuals as social beings. Political and social participation has intrinsic value for human life and well-being. To be prevented from participation in the political life of the community is a major deprivation.  

(2) Second, as I have just discussed (in disputing the claim that democracy is in tension with economic development), democracy has an important instrumental value in enhancing the hearing that people get in expressing and supporting their claims to political attention (including claims of economic needs). 

(3) Third--and this is a point to be explored further--the practice of democracy gives citizens an opportunity to learn from one another, and helps society to form its values and priorities. 

Even the idea of "needs," including the understanding of "economic needs," requires public discussion and exchange of information, views, and analyses. In this sense, democracy has constructive importance, in addition to its intrinsic value for the lives of the citizens and its instrumental importance in political decisions.

The claims of democracy as a universal value have to take note of this diversity of considerations.  The conceptualization--even comprehension--of what are to count as "needs," including "economic needs," may itself require the exercise of political and civil rights.


 A proper understanding of what economic needs are--their content and their force--may require discussion and exchange. Political and civil rights, especially those related to the guaranteeing of open discussion, debate, criticism, and dissent, are central to the process of generating informed and considered choices. These processes are crucial to the formation of values and priorities, and we cannot, in general, take preferences as given independently of public discussion, that is, irrespective of whether open interchange and debate are permitted or not.  In fact, the reach and effectiveness of open dialogue are often underestimated in assessing social and political problems. 

For example,  public discussion has an important role to play in reducing the high rates of fertility that characterize many developing countries. There is substantial evidence that the sharp decline in fertility rates in India's more literate states has been much influenced by public discussion of the bad effects of high fertility rates on the community at large, and especially on the lives of young women. If the view has emerged in, say, the Indian state of Kerala or of Tamil Nadu that a happy family in the modern age is a small family, much discussion and debate have gone into the formation of these perspectives. Kerala now has a fertility rate of 1.7 (similar to that of Britain and France, and well below China's 1.9), and this has been achieved with no coercion, but mainly through the emergence of new values--a process in which political and social dialogue has played a major part. Kerala's high literacy rate (it ranks higher in literacy than any province in China), especially among women, has greatly contributed to making such social and political dialogue possible. 

 Miseries and deprivations can be of various kinds, some more amenable to social remedies than others. The totality of the human predicament would be a gross basis for identifying our "needs." For example, there are many things that we might have good reason to value and thus could be taken as "needs" if they were feasible. We could even want immortality, as Maitreyee, that remarkable inquiring mind in the Upanishads, famously did in her 3000-year old conversation with Yajnvalkya. 

But we do not see immortality as a "need" because it is clearly unfeasible. Our conception of needs relates to our ideas of the preventable nature of some deprivations and to our understanding of what can be done about them. In the formation of understandings and beliefs about feasibility (particularly, social feasibility), public discussions play a crucial role. Political rights, including freedom of expression and discussion, are not only pivotal in inducing social responses to economic needs, they are also central to the conceptualization of economic needs themselves.  

Saturday, 9 September 2023

STATE OF INDIAN DEMOCRACYBased on Land of the partly free by Sankarshan Thakur in The Telegraph 6.9.23

STATE OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY


Based on Land of the partly free by Sankarshan Thakur in The Telegraph 6.9.23


1. As I write this, the capital city of what Modi calls the ‘mother of democracy’ is turning into an enactment of totalitarian advisories, being barricaded against its own citizenry in preparation for the G20 gala it is to host. A temporary blockage has been decreed on the heart of town — shops, schools, offices, enterprises, nothing is to work, even the shadows have been ordered still as khaki platoons and municipal apparatchik go about purposing a besieged, flower-potted garrison that is to stage the crowning pageant.



2. Five  months have ticked over since fires broke out in Manipur and were allowed to score scars that will rebuff healing. Close to two hundred people have died, inestimable property destroyed, and multiple thousands displaced in the process of forging a bitter ethnic divide. Wo­men have been stripped, raped, paraded and filmed; worse was done to them than the viral circulation of their pain. The prime minister has not gone to Manipur; he has spoken of Manipur for a few odd minutes. Such are our priorities.


3. The chief minister of Manipur, N. Biren Singh, set his police after a fact-finding team of the Editors Guild of India whose report had damned him as, among other things, patently partisan. Earlier, when clips of the horror done to Manipuri women surfaced, Singh’s first resort was to locate the source of the “leak”, not the perpetrators of the crime. Such too are our priorities. In Kashmir just last week, the police threatened legal action against a BBC report on the throttling of the media. Never mind where irony found refuge. India this year has slipped to 161 out of 180 nations on the Press Freedom Index, twenty spots below Somalia, which has no record of making claims to mothering democracy.


4.  India has also been rated “partly free” by the Washington-based rights advocacy body, Freedom House, mainly on account of how imperilled our minorities have come to be. But Freedom House is an agency of the West, best disregarded. Let’s examine our conduct ourselves. A schoolteacher instructs her class to take turns at thrashing a fellow student because he is a Muslim, then says she doesn’t regret what she did. A uniformed jawan walks up and down a moving train, marks out Muslim men by their looks, uses his service weapon to kill them and then delivers a cold sermon on what’s acceptable and what’s not. Later, he says given the chance, he’d have killed more. Sectarian hate has been whipped and served from the highest quarters in recent years and the street allowed to wreak unspeakable violations. 


5. The shape of justice is quite often a bulldozer whose wanton marauding nothing seems to be able to check. The absence of disapproval at all or any of this is deafening; it speaks to collective corruption and collective failure.


6.  The dog-whistler of violence has a seat in government. Convicted rapists and murderers are free and openly felicitated. Those who have demanded their fundamental freedoms and invoked constitutional rights are in prison. Should it be any surprise that record numbers of Indians are forsaking their citizenship and seeking out lives elsewhere?


7. The ruling party is out on the offensive in defence of a brutally oppressive caste system and daring the Opposition to take on its sectarian populism. 


8. The head of its IT cell is a flagrant propagandist of lies and poisoned prejudice. But the IT cell is but a part, although a critical part, of the larger scheme.


 9.There are also, for instance, the ED and the CBI, never mind that they are entities of government and not of the party, such distinction may no longer count for much. Nation, Party, Leader, Government — they have come to denote one cohabitation. And so, depending on how ill- or well-behaved you are to that one purpose, agencies like the ED and the CBI can either have you in their crosshairs or airbrush you out of trouble. 


10. In ideology, tactics and optics, it is almost a carbon impress of the Hitlerian playbook. The Modi cabinet is barely embarrassed that it trots out in public fashioned after a brigade of HMV sycophants. Almost nothing that the ministers of the Union do is not courtesy pradhan mantriji or, simply, Modiji, the one and only. So unyieldingly the one and only that when the nation held its breath and its eyeballs on Chandrayaan-3 landing live on the moon, the euphoric moment of touchdown had to be obscured because the cameras had to be turned on Modiji beaming live and beatifically from a far corner of the world. You’re about to be treated to a more wholesome, and probably uninterrupted, encore. Keep watching. We are a spectacle.


Monday, 14 August 2023

INEQUALITY (BASED ON ROBER REICH LECTURE IN UC BARLEY

      

      
Social contract ---is defined by  whom  we do owe and what  we do owe.  We owe ourselves, to our families, to our communities, to our larger society, to our states, to our nation and to our continent and ultimately to our planet and to the universe? We born in a family, our family has a neighborhood, a community which in turn is a part of our bigger  society, which is a constituent of   our state and nation and our nation is a small part of our planet and our planet is a tiny entity in the universe. Hence we belong to all these. 
  Now  see,  due to our own position in such entities we are responsible to them. We are answerable to them. We are creators of our system and we belong to these systems. We are bound to respond to the ills of these systems and we have duty to correct them. Science, and social sciences  have been  created by us to help us live collectively. If we withdraw from our responsibilities to look after them these pillars of our syrem-science and social sciences start cracking. So to save our existence as a collective being it's imperative on our part to keep them orderly and healthy.
  
INEQUALITY

1. A.  Economic inequality-
inequality of income and wealth in a society can not be explained and understood without dealing with socio structural set up of a society.

   B.  Economic inequality is not possible without understanding inequality in terms of political science, history and social sciences., Science & technology and mathematics.
   

   C.  If you think you know everything and you are right everytime it simply means you are foolish and you do nothing at all except bragging all the time. Those who are not ready to learn are destined to remain fool for whole life. And the best way of learning is discussing with those who do not agree with you. Dissenter is the best teacher.
   
    D.  Only consciousness about relativity regarding one's standing in society reveals one's position in the society. If you are not conscious of your relative status in your society you are not in a position to understand reality around you.
    E. In the US workers productivity and wages continue to rise to gather from about 1946 but from about 1980s wages started falling though productivity of labours continued to rise. It is a paradox.
    
   F. Though economy and productivity was increasing real purchasing power also simultaneously decreasing from the same years.
   
     G.Then where does the economic gain may go
  a. To the pockets of more wealthy people
  b. To be used for further investment
  c. To the govt programmes for poor
  d. To the programmes for improvement of public education and health and other humanitarian infrastructure
  e. To erect new infrastructure
  
    F. The reality is that from 1980s median income became stagnant, poor continued to  became poorer and top reach continued to  became richer. This shows the major economic gain has been usurped by the people who were already richer. 
    
     G. In the US from.1946 to 1980.lower income people gained most but from 1980 trend changed and higher income group started getting more and more income whereas lower income people became poorer and poorer and in some cases became income starved group.
     
    H. Income is a flow of earning over a certain period of time whereas wealth is the result of that flow. Wealth is an asset and income may flow from wealth as well . Fir example one man purchases a house from his income and put it on rent. Now he starts getting income in the form of rent of that house.
    
    I. From 1980s income from wealth is increasing for the rich.
    
    J. If flow of income becomes less it is very hard to keep owning the already accumulated wealth.
    
    K. Wealth gap is more than income gap because wealth is accumulative.
    
    L. Children born in a rich family has greater chance to remain rich but those born in middle income or lower income has only a little chance to be rich.

    M. There are significant gaps due to caste and ethnicity in income and wealth. SCs/STs, OBCs, Females and Muslims in general in India have less income and consequently less wealth due to their social standing in the society's structure.

 ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF INEQUALITY

(A) Inequality helps the rich to establush more enterprises . Inequality promotes incentives for the rich who in tern focus on more innovations, enterprenuership, jobs, employment and so richness of the rich helps people to be benefitted .

(B) inequality promotes competitiveness and everyone has a chance to be rich.

(C) Inequality brings wealth and income to the rich but someone is not rich at expense of someone's poverty.

(D). We can reduce poverty without reducing inequality.

(E). Targeting the rich is socially divisive.

 MOBILITY AND INEQUALITY

    Inequality may be less impactful if prospects of mobility are sufficient. If people can be mobile as per their contribution to economy mobility could be more flexible.

WHY INEQUALITY IS BAD

1. If X becomes richer and Y doesn't  become poorer , it is argued that inequality is not bad. 
     But this is bad as it is not only a question of not becoming poorer but it's a question of Fairness. If from the same economic gains X gets , say thousand times more than Z it's not fair to Z. 

 2.Why do consumer in us often beat Citizens in us? For example why we don't go to neighborhood shop for marketing and prefer some online plateform? This is probably due to
        I) lack of adequate resources
        ii) most of us do not connect our action. With common good 
        iii) if others are not doing sacrifices why should I ?


DO WE ALSO CONTRIBUTE?

1. As a citizen we favour availability of good job, good wages, and presence of small and medium shops in our neighbourhood.

2. But as a consumer we prefer ease of purchasing goods, cheap availability of goods and services and best deals with lowest price.

3. This contradiction between our consumer value and citizen value and consequent preference for our consumer value puts pressure on wages of workers who produce such goods, but the facilitators , like platforms on which such online business for cheap goods and best deals happens get more profits. This has widening impact on inequality.

4. This is may be due to any of these reasons--

I) lack of adequate resources
        ii) most of us do not connect our action. With common good 
        iii) if others are not doing sacrifices why should I ?

WHERE DOES PROFIT MARGIN GO?

1.
a. To the pockets of more wealthy people
  b. To be used for further investment
  c. To the govt programmes for poor
  d. To the programmes for improvement of public education and health and other humanitarian infrastructure
  e. To erect new infrastructure

2. A large part of profit margin goes to CEOs as their salary and salary consists of mainly stocks of shares.

3. Share prices have been increasing from 1980s and so is with CEOs salary.

4. In the US 
         Top 1% owns about 50% of shares value.
         Top 10% owns about 92% of share values.
         Bottom 50% own .25% of share values.
         Thus most of the wealth(shares) go to small fraction of population.
  And this huge wealth is with baby boomers.

5. When these baby boomers die they leave this huge wealth to their children and grand children. This is called GENERATIONAL WEALTH TRANSFER.


RAISING PROFITS BY A CORPORATION:METHADOLOGY

I. Cut payroll cost
      A. By reducing wages of employees  except top executive.
      B. Eleminate health care and retrial benefits.

2. Ways to accomplish this by
      # Firing some employees
   By outsourcing job to abroad
   By software substitute
   By improving overall efficiency
   By weakening unions.
   
    3. Every worker is also a consumer and if a worker is severely affected is it not going to harm consumer base?
     No , because the management fails to do so some other player may enter into the scene, take over the company and sell out at higher price.

 4. Other way to increase profit-sharing
        Cut workers safety
        Eliminate overtime pay
        Fire anyone above 45
        Don't promote or tain women.
        Hire undocumented immigrant .

5. In the US corporates profits increases so much thatp it become bigger than national economy.

6. Wages as share of national economy continuously dropped from 2000 in US however in Europe remain more or less the same. So in the US inequality rises more than in Europe.

     In India situation is

Year | Share of wages in national income (%)
------- | --------
1990 | 40.8
1991 | 39.7
1992 | 38.7
1993 | 37.9
1994 | 37.3
1995 | 37.0
1996 | 36.8
1997 | 36.6
1998 | 36.5
1999 | 36.4
2000 | 36.3
2001 | 36.1
2002 | 35.9
2003 | 35.7
2004 | 35.6
2005 | 35.5
2006 | 35.4
2007 | 35.3
2008 | 35.2
2009 | 35.1
2010 | 34.9
2011 | 34.7
2012 | 34.5
2013 | 34.3
2014 | 34.2
2015 | 34.1
2016 | 33.9
2017 | 33.7
2018 | 33.5
2019 | 33.4
2020 | 33.3
2021 | 33.2
2022 | 33.1

As you can see, the share of wages in national income in India has been declining since 1990. This decline is due to a number of factors, including the rise of mechanization in agriculture, the decline in the size of landholdings, and the lack of job opportunities in rural areas. The decline in the share of wages in national income is also a challenge to the government's goal of achieving inclusive growth.

It is important to note that the share of wages in national income is just one indicator of the distribution of income in a country. Other factors, such as the size of the informal sector and the level of inequality, also play a role in determining how income is distributed.


The share of wealth of shareholders in national economy in India from 2004 to 2022 is not available. The data on the distribution of wealth in India is not collected or published by the government. There are a number of reasons for this, including the lack of a comprehensive definition of wealth, the difficulty of measuring wealth accurately, and the sensitivity of the data.

However, there are some estimates of the share of wealth held by the richest 1% of Indians. According to a 2016 report by Oxfam India, the richest 1% of Indians controlled 58.4% of the country's wealth. This share has likely increased in recent years, as the Indian economy has grown and inequality has widened.

The share of wealth held by shareholders is likely to be a small fraction of the total wealth in India. However, it is likely that this share has increased in recent years, as the Indian stock market has boomed. In 2004, the market capitalization of the Indian stock market was around \\$1 trillion. By 2022, it had grown to over \\$3 trillion. This growth has benefited shareholders, who have seen their wealth increase significantly.

It is important to note that the share of wealth held by shareholders is just one measure of inequality. Other measures, such as the Gini coefficient, are also used to measure inequality. The Gini coefficient for India is around 0.4, which is considered to be high. This means that there is a significant amount of inequality in India, with a small number of people holding a large share of the wealth.

 PURPOSE OF CORPORATIONS

    It should be stakeholders capitalism and should not be shareholders capitalism only.

WHAT HAPPENED TO CAPITALISM FROM 1980'

1. More and more emphasis on best deals resulting in inequality with higher and higher wages of so called star performers.

2. Corporations are making big profit margins but at the same time though salary etc of top executives has been increasing that of the workers remains stagnant resulting in increasing inequality.

3. Most of the increase in the income of top executives come in the forms of stock of shares and there has been increasing bye back of the shares by corporations themselves, resulting into the fact that the major profit doesn't go either to workers or to the development fund of the corporations but to the pockets of the top executives and to the wealth of the corporations generating huge gap in income and wealth of top .

3. Shift of capitalism From stakeholder capitalism to shareholder capitalism from early 80s --less and less expenditure on workers and more and more in rewarding shareholders and CEOs.
             ............. Outsourcing the task for maximizing profits of shareholders.

SOME IMPORTANT FEATURES:
      GLOBALIZATION, TECHNILOGICAL CHANGES. JOBS OF THE FUTURE

1.AS wages remain stagnant consumers have come under the pressure  ,consumers are left two options- 
(a) to spend on  less  items 
Or (b) to spend less on each item
    This is the pressure of demand of best deals on the part of consumers to save  money as much as possible or to spend money in a way to get maximum from the same money. This is a situation of resource crunch for consumers who also happen to be workers with stagnant median wage. 

2. In the environment of  increasing inequality is it possible for most of the people under the pressure of stagnant  or real lower income to withstand the onslaught of winds of modern tech as such people due to lack of adequate income and wealth can not technologically upgrade themselves in order to be remain relevant or in order to be able to be competitive in job markets. So people at the bottom of inequality are facing of danger of being wiped out by the new technology of machine learning and AI.

3. Corporations are under greater to pressure to maximize their return , but this is not to increase the wages of workers or to increase the investment for improving the corporations but to maximize the return of the shareholders.

4. More increase in income and wealth of investors and less income for workers.

MOBILITY AND SEGREGATION

1. CAUSE OF LESS GEOGRAPHICAL MOBILITY WITHIN THE COUNTRY

i. People of low income area don't want better jobs in high income area because of high cost of living.

ii. People in low income area have strong and extensive network of family and friends.

iii. People in high income areas don't move to low income areas as these areas have very few good opportunities.

iv. People of high income areas don't move to low income areas as latter have not good living facilities.

2. CLASS AND CASTE
GEOGRAPHICAL SEGREGATION

In the story of inequality we find

i. Class and class are intersecting each other.

ii. Class   of a person in many cases carries along with it the caste status. 

iii. In many other cases  castes continue  its status when travels to class.

3. Even in a poor area people tend to live in separate groups according to their caste status or communal identity.
   And same is in rich areas of residence.

3. In urban areas population's residencial pattern is decided by caste and class.

EDUCATIONAL SEGREGATION

SOME OTHER FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGH PRICES, LOW WAGES AND SO FOR INEQUALITY

1.Globalization
2.Technology
3.Monoplistic production and service

MARKET VS STATE

1. If fact market is not free from govt.
2. Rules regarding functioning of market are framed by legislatures, judiciary and executive branches of govt.
3.Much political power is executed in favour of market by
    A.Simply keeping issues off public agenda.
     B.Blocking proposed law.
     C.Interpreting laws
      D.Simply not enforcing law.
     E.Framing the choices by hiding other choices.

MONEY AND POWER

1. Money is not not a zero-sum game. This means that if money concentrates at the top this doesn't mean people in the middle or at the bottom are not making money. They may be still money even when there is growing concentration of money and wealth at the top.
  But power is a zero -sum game, thar means when there is more power at the top people in the middle and at the bottom have less power.

2. Rules of market are not the results of operation of market itself, rather these rules of market are created by power and power is not equally allocated at all levels.

3. Wealth begets power, and power begets wealth. This is a viciousl cycle. More power at the top concentrates more wealth at the top. More power makes possible to make rules regulations in favour of market mechanism which helps invrease in wealth at the top . More wealth at the top again generates more power at the top. This is the vicious cycle of power and wealth. So policies are made and enacted to favour wealthier.

4. Corporate and trade groups spending on elections have been increasing since 1970s.

WEALH-TAX-POWER

1. When wealth is maximum at the top , taxes at top are lower.
2. When at the top wealth is low taxes are higher at the top.

PROPERTY

1. Concept of property changes with time. Earlier slaves were property but when slavery abolished they were no longer property. In the US the military took over the lands of native American. Thus property is subject to political power.

2. Under Intellectual property ideas are property.

SOME SOLUTIONS

1. Ensuring easy access to vote.

2.Disclosing the sources of money received by pol parties.

3. Complete transparency of political donations.

4. Limit on political donations

5.Independent audit system for political parties.

6.Making such audit reports public.

7.Releasing of wealth from top to middle and low. Reset wealth distribution.

8. Break monopolistic economy.

9. Civil Rights legislations.

10. More freedom to people to access political, economic, social cultural tools.

When prises rise more than rise in  income it means people are becoming poorer as their purchasing declines with increasing prices.

BUSINESS CYCLE

1.Businesses become too optimistic during upturns and create too much capacity, then must reverse.

2. Consumers spend too much during upturns until they are so deep in debt they must reverse course

3. Govt spends too much during upturns and they they must pull back as budget deficit mounts.

4. Pandemic come along and disrupts economy.

PRODUCTIVE CAPACITIES OF A NATION
   People
   Offices
    Labs
    Factories
     Infrastructures

DEMANDS
   Consumers
   Government
   Exports
    Businesses

PRICE RISE(INFLATION)
     When demand is more than Supply

PRICE DECLINE (RECESSESSION)
      When supply surpasses demand. Job loss

This cycle goes on intermittently. 

Job loss- First are those who are in bottom half, least skilled. And if the social structure of those who lost first is slayed we get the picture that as in the US where first losers are blacks and Hispanics in India they mainly belong to OBCs , SCs/STs.

FISCAL POLICIES--Govt spending
    Creates demands, which creat jobs and boosts wages.

This may create govt debt but if economy is growing fast due to the expansive fiscal policy  debt/gdp ratio is lowering .

But what when Debt/GDP ratio is increasing. Then if policy of raising taxes and cutting down govt expenditure economy slows down. This is raise DEBT/GDP ratio.
      One may argue this will lead to inflation.

SPENDING
1.spending on Past obligations(social security)
2. Spending on current needs of individuals and families.
3. Spending on stabilization (to counter the effects of business cycle eg. Income support during recession)
4. Spending on future productivity like education, infrastructure, R&D

MONETARY POLICY

1.Demand is less---Interst rates are lowered
Demand is high/Inflation loom- Interest rates are increasd

Note--ONE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS OF DEMOCRACY IS THAT MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHERE DOES POWER LIE. MOST PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT OF HOW POWER  FUNCTIONS AND WHERE IS IT'S SWITCH.

PUBLIC POLICY AND DEMOCRACY

Democracy is a system in which those in power are duty bound to listen what the public in general are demanding. Public demands force the democratically elected leaders to act. It is true that even in a classically perfect democracy those who are at the top may try to enforce their own ideas as policies in the name of some public good but policies are not the handiwork of the governments only. Governments have to listen to voters as the governments are aware that they will have to be answerable to the voters in parliament, and on other plateform and ultimately in the next elections when they go to be reelected. So people's voice must get a space in the area of public policy.

  While choosing a public policy to be implemented the steps that may involve include--

1. Identification of a problem which is a public problem

2. Identification of Possible intents and goals

3. Identification of possible alternatives to achieve those goals

4. Finalising one option as a public policy

5. Finalizing implementation strategy

6. Monitoring, improvement and reshaping.

7. Intermittent evaluation

     All steps involve discussions and debates. A healthy democracy is that where voters and general public are aware of what is going on and where public have sufficient forum to express their ideas, opinions, apprehensions and suggestions.

   Problem in Indian system of democratic governance is that here elite and leaders are fanciful of providing policies without acknowledging the reality that considering the dimensions of problems and  size of population they have  not the adequate information and skill to decide about any policy. Of course leaders must have ideas and ideologies but they should entrust the specialists the task to evaluate their applicability feasibility and utility and if every thing is all right direct them to translate such ideas and ideologies into policies. And if such leaders have something to offer about applicability and utility they should let the discussions happen and then take decision on the basis of voting. We have seen the disastrous policy implementation in many cases e.g. in cases of demonetization, lockdown, etc. These were in fact not policy decisions but they were just authoritarian whimsical decisions.


A human being is a social being and her or his personality is constructed by influences listed below


1. Genetic make up(and this is to be investigated for each individual separately)

2. Cognitive ability

3. Group memberships

4. Emotions

5. Beliefs and attitudes

6. Identity

7. Media exposure

8. Social networks

9. Elites/group leaders

10. Education

11. Life experiences

12. Institutional arrangements

13. Laws/Norms/Traditions

14. Social structure and social order


Every person has a political opinion and that is created by various factors mentioned above. So when policy areas  are to be identified and policies are to be formulated policy makers must also take public opinions as their guide . If opinions are taken or discussed before hand there is greater chance of adherence and compliance. As we have seen in case of Anti farm law agitations of farmers. When Farm Laws were passed there were virtually no consultation with essential stakeholders , that is farmers and that led to intensive farmer's agitation against these laws which culminated into withdrawal of laws. Since every person is a political person and democracy calls for listening to every interested person consultations and taking stock of public opinions matter a lot.














Friday, 2 December 2022

CONSEQUENCES OF INEQUALITY

Consequences of inequality

1.Children's prospects of earning depend more on their parents income than their own performance.

2.Tricke down theory fails to benifit those who are at middle and lower levels. Most of the benefits in a trickle down economy usurped by upper section.

3.Those who are benefitted most usurp all or most benefits, their children get important positions but their own contribution to the society are significantly non existential.

4.There are two ways to earn more wealth. One is to increase the pie and get more share from the pie.
    The second way is not to increase the size of pie, rather usurp the larger share from pie, making the pie itself smaller. In this way the country's overall wealth is not increased but by usurping the the larger share from the the existing wealth some are benefitted more than others at the expense of the earning of wealth by the most people. Thus most people's wealth declines as more and more wealth shifts from the people to a few upper section people.

5.As the overall pie doesn't increase the growth slows down.

6.When there is more inequality most people are listed from the system of talent creation and so the society is left with fewer talents. This makes growth slower again.

7.When inequality is high the upper people get more tax concession. They earn more but pay lesser taxes whearas those who earn less, pay more taxes. This perpetuates inequality more on the one hand and on the other hand place less resources for growth. Thus again growth slows down.

8.When less resources are at the disposal of the govt there is less investment in common good activities like education, health, scientific research,  public infrastructure and their comparative backwardness leads to more slower growth.

9. When inequality grows it benefits upper section and that section in tern tries to fund such government which can protect it's interests. If a more democratic govt cones that may be concerned with the plight of middle and lower sections and may go for redistribution. Hence to prevent this to occur upper section works for a government which is less democratic, more autocratic in favour of upper section, and which promotes crony capitalism's govt.

10. As inequality grows wealth is more concentrated in a fewer hands and income of most of the people falls. Resources move from majority to minority . Hence demand declines. As demand declines production slumps. And ultimately recession rules.

11.Democracy is designed by laws and rules made which shape politics in democracy. Laws and rules are made in such a way that they favour the interests of upper section. For example in India there is law of electoral bond. Provisions have been so made that there is a guarantee of opacity in the law contrary to law of transparency as required in democracy. This is so because this serves the interests of crony capitalists and their  cozy bed partner  power structure. This goes against the interests of common people and affects judicial system also.

12.This creates a downward vicious circle. Economic inequality leads to inequality of political power and unequal political power feeds economic inequality by making unequal laws and regulations.

13.This vicious cycle ensures perpetuation of all sorts of inequality. Consequence is that of creation of disillusioned citizenry. Citizens think the democracy is useless. They feel nothing is going to change by their votes. This leads to fall in participation in  democracy.

14.This disillusion has more tentacles. Some move towards far left extremism and some to far right extremism. Violence is restored to eradicate inequality and inequality fed disadvantages. This also leads to emergence of false promising populism. And idea of some strong leader grows. Strong leaders do nothing but usurp power more strongly and more inequality is generated.

15.This also increases role of money and muscle in politics. As people get disillusioned at the time of elections money is used to lure those who don't want to vote . Money is used to win the votes of those who are supposed to support those who give money. And those who are thought to be antagonists are threatened not to vote. Voting remains not in the  domain of voters. Rather a voter's choice to vote and to vote for a particular party goes to those small groups who control money and muscle that is those who are in the upper section. Thus votes of common people who are disillusioned due to inequality again becomes captive of those who are perpetuators of inequality.