Comment

Here is an idea that comes with the tag of ‘bad’ and ‘dangerous’. In popular imagination, economic democracy conjures images of trade unionism and strikes. And it is inevitably tied up with failed socialism.

It brings a scowl to the faces of captains of industry and members of the salariat. It seems to be something whose time is past.

Reform-minded governments are only too willing not to mention it. It would seem that economic liberalisation and economic democracy are incompatible: If you have the one, you cannot have the other. Most people are likely to interpret the just-resolved Singur crisis at the Tata’s Nano plant as a clash between the two options. And clearly people would prefer liberalisation to democracy. That is the mood of the moment.

The general aversion to it should be no reason not to mention it in polite conversation. As a matter of fact, it is better to bring it up now rather than later because evolved markets tend to move towards some sort of an open-ended democratic set up.

The vibrancy of markets depends on this democratic quotient. Indians in love with markets and economic reforms need to get used to the idea because it is the future of the system.

At Singur, the major players did not play by democratic rules. West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee went about it in Stalinist fashion. People think that he is a liberal because he wants industrialisation and private investment. What he is really doing is to adopt strong-arm tactics to acquire land to push industrialisation.

Corporates are only too happy to go along with him because industrialists appreciate ruthless efficiency and speed of implementation. And most of them would say that Buddhadeb’s approach should be adopted across the country. No questions should be asked when the issue at stake is economic growth.

Mamata Banerjee and Trinamool Congress are not standing up for the rights of farmers who refuse to part with their land. They are fighting theCPM to wrest power from the entrenched Left Front. So, the protest is just a ruckus and a warning to CPM hoods that they have to share the territory. Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi has resolved the power tussle between the CPM and the Trinamool Congress.

The right of the individual farmers to refuse to part with his land has been glossed over. It would be argued that the latest Supreme Court judgment about acquiring land for the larger good of society leaves no room for the dissenting farmers. But there is no need to accept the Supreme Court judgment as the last word. The court’s view needs to be contested and debated.

Industrial units have to be part of the local communities. It is always good corporate practice to have direct links with the people. The Tatas are sure to claim that their record in Jamshedpur is evidence of their commitment to the community. It is not an accurate version. The unions had to fight before they got their dues.

The Tatas also mistake corporate philanthropy — like setting up schools, hospitals —for democracy.What is involved in economic democracy is the right to examine and discuss the implications of economic activity by the community. In many of the advanced industrial countries in Europe and in North America, no one would set up a manufacturing or a service unit without the consent of the community.

It is the community which must say whether it welcomes an outsider to come and set up a manufacturing unit that will change its way of life. The industrialistshave to learn to respect people. This requires idealism greater than even what the Tatas have displayed so far in their corporate history.

One of the reasons why socialist states imploded is the arrogant belief that governments know what is good for the people. Industrialists are prone to the same hubris. It would be necessary for industry to rethink the fundamentals of economic activity. They have to learn to respect people and learn to accept a refusal when there is one in good spirit.
E-mail : r_parsa@dnaindia.net