|
Challenges
to Democracy:
13th Lecture in the series on 14-12-2007
By Dr.
T.T. Sreekumar
Asst.
Professor, Faculty of Arts and Science, National University of
Singapore; Prolific Writer, Poet, Author, Literary Critic &
Political Thinker
|
 |
"People’s
Empowerment and Gender Justice were among the major objectives
of the techno-cultural revolution. It was hoped to be a march
towards the Millennium Development Goals. However, it miserably
failed to achieve the declared targets. This is an area where
the civil society movements can help. The question, therefore,
is can the NGOs, civil society movements, community based
organizations and democratic institutions offer themselves a
counter force and bring the desired changes?"
-
Dr. T.T.
Sreekumar
|
Talk was focused on Techno
Culture and Challenges to Democracy. The speaker addressed issues of
human rights, identity politics and marginalization emerging in the
wake of new technologies. There are indeed several important
challenges to democracy created by the new digital technology
culture.
What are their dimensions? How do
we understand and respond to these challenges? How do the realms of
State, Civil society and Market reconfigure themselves in the age of
techno culture? What are the major implications of these changes?
The 75 minutes long discourse
started with a reference to Russia. After the fall of the erstwhile
Soviet Union, the scientists of the land were of the opinion,
“Russia has gone to dogs”. The reason, according to them, is that
they have lost the prominence and privileged positions they were
holding in the past. Because in the Soviet Union, it was the body of
scientists and technologists that controlled every decision, even in
the matter of every day governance of the civil society.
If it was so, what’s happening
currently in China? There are 20 members in the Polit Bureau, the
most powerful, supreme decision making body in China. Nineteen of
them are technocrats and scientists. You will not find a
sociologist, social worker or activist among them. Recently they had
their Party Congress. Three members were replaced by another set of
three scientists, but of course no one from any other profession.
China, after the Cultural Revolution, has been in the hands of
technocrats and technologists. The
 Chinese
leadership, in short, is a collective of scientists only.
Look at the structure of the
public governance that makes the social engineering possible only
through the hands of the technical experts! Does it not tell upon
what should be the future leadership of Asia?
Cyber space is the open arena of
democracy. However, governments are capable of monitoring and
controlling the internet. Google was not permitted in the beginning
to enter in to the land of China. Later, it made compromise with
Chinese leadership as it was desperately looking for an early entry
into the land. Subject to all conditions laid down by the Chinese
Government, Google was allowed to operate in China.
How do you define techno culture?
It all depends how you are going to articulate its utility for the
favour of democratization. There have been several attempts in India
to bring the marginalized communities and most vulnerable sections
of society to the main stream by introducing internet in rural
areas. This was primarily intended for the up-bringing of women,
farmers, agricultural labourers, and those engaged in traditional
and un-organized labour sector. The farming community of Dhar
village in Madhya Pradesh was, for instance, a target group in the
experiment. As every one knows, the farmers were always victims of
exploitation, corruption and unfair practices. They were denied fair
prices, fair wages, and of course were not properly organized to
bargain for their legitimate rights. The e-governance was supposed
to protect them in such situation. But alas, the actual problem of
the farming community was not ignorance of market prices, or
exploitation by the brokers in the market. They had taken heavy
loans or had borrowed huge amounts for seeds, manure, pesticides,
preparation of agricultural lands, fodder, their own sustenance till
harvest season and obviously they had agreed to the money lenders to
give them the produce at a price they had agreed upon at the time of
the loan. Hence they could not avail the current market price. This
proved the failure of the underlying purposes of e-governance
envisaged by some technocrat who was not aware of the ground
realities in Indian villages.
For majority of Indian farmers,
the knowledge of e-commerce was a waste. It was useful for a limited
number of farmers who had all facilities, physical and material set
up. In other words a small segment of the large scale farmers who
themselves belong to the most sophisticated and elitist societies
capture all advantages and benefits of technology.
Technology remains a weapon or an
effective tool in the hands of the top brands in the society. Look
at the kiosks in Pondicherry under the M.S.Swaminathan Foundation.
They all are in the hands a Trust constituted of the Brahmin
priests. The villages of the poor peasants or those under developed
villages have no resources to own up such technology- based
experiments or innovations. Further, they do not have fiduciary
capability to maintain and update the systems.
People’s Empowerment and Gender
Justice were among the major objectives of the techno-cultural
revolution. It was hoped to be a march towards the Millennium
Development Goals. However, it miserably failed to achieve the
declared targets. This is an area where the civil society movements
can help. The question, therefore, is can the NGOs, civil society
movements, community based organizations and democratic institutions
offer themselves a counter force and bring the desired changes?
Techno culture has already proved not to be a substitute for
people’s initiatives in bringing social changes.
The biggest challenge to
Democracy today in the area of technology is its Brahmanism.
Technology remains the monopoly of the rich and the elitist. The
common man is pushed out or is marginalized. When technology becomes
the media and means of development and, the tool and language of
civil and political governance, those who are poor in technology or
not conversant with it, are naturally kept out or eventually get
eliminated from the mainstream.
‘Non-users’ of internet is a
wrong usage. It is not correct to assess others with reference to
the ‘users’ of internet. Our children go for video games in
libraries, parks and common places paying Rs 5 as users’ fee.
Nevertheless, there are thousands of children who are not capable of
saving Rs 5 a day for games. Hence it creates two classes of
children based on their buying capacity. Techno culture has proved
its inability to eradicate the prevailing inequalities. On the other
hand it not only perpetuates inequalities but also creates new forms
of hierarchies in society. We need social movements to do away with
unequal structures and classifications among people.
Not all struggles and strikes are
recorded in history. Only those that are orchestrated and performed
by mainstream groups are regarded as history. Others are simply
ignored or consciously bypassed. The Adivasi struggle for their
alienated lands, the struggle for survival by the fishing community
and the like have gone in oblivion and there were concerted efforts
so that they did not surface at all. Perhaps the last of its kind by
the main stream was the struggle for excess lands from 1970 to
1975. There have been no major people’s movements there after.
There is social pressure behind
the emergence of techno culture. Cycle is the best example. The
invention and innovation of cycle was due to the mounting needs in
the society. The demands in society determine the evolution of new
forms of technologies. Techno culture shall not be left
indiscriminately in the hands of the elite. It has to be
democratized.
Demand and Supply determine the
market. The State need not intervene here. Was it not in this
context Adam Smith said that the State need not intervene in the
market?. In a capitalist society, both the State and the Market
merge and one dissolves in the other. The civil society becomes
extinct at this stage. Market takes the role of governance in total
autocracy. Here again the civil society becomes defunct. Where as,
struggles like NBA are not meant to conquer political regime or
material power. They are, on the other hand, not prepared to leave
market open to the capitalist forces. The civil society has space
only in democracy and no where else. |
