RECALLING SOCRATES IN MODERN TIMES
TEJINDER NARANG
(Trade Analyst)
The period prior to Socrates in Greece–that is
of Sophists –about 2600 years back, believed that right and wrong are
relative—so are good and evil. Sophists were adept in proving right as wrong
and vice versa, by clever play of logic and rhetoric.
But Socrates argued that people are largely
ignorant of what they want. Unless people acquire a life of good virtues--
wisdom, courage, justice and temperance-- they are bound to regret. For example—all
of us believe in seeking happiness as the prime purpose of life and therefore
material wealth, powerful position, good family and social life are of
paramount importance. In pursuit of these very objectives, there is more pain
than pleasure. The so called Happiness is riddled with fear and worries of all
sorts or with concerns of losing what we have, and therefore is illusory.
In modern democratic world too, people elect
leaders for more comfortable life with their expectations linked to promises made
by prominent politicians. These leaders take advantage of the lesser awareness
of the people and flatter their feelings for winning elections. After a few
months and/ or a few years, those very people who elect leader(s) with resounding
victory, start blaming the polity that “what they wanted” is not delivered. Rulers
suffer pain of this politicking by fear of losing power.
Socrates hypothesis maintains that people who
are virtuous must choose leader in a democracy. But who will decide as to who
are wise and virtuous—and not clever –is the question that begs an answer.
Socrates had to drink hemlock of poison for adherence to this philosophy of
virtues for a democratic set up. Today—Socrates is alive in thoughts of the
world—while his killers remain forgotten.
In most developed parts of the
world, where people are even well educated and well informed have also exposed
themselves to national pain in the hope of gain. David Cameroon, the former British Prime
Minister, never expected that Britain would vote for termination of its
alliance with EU under Brexit referendum. On 23rd June 2016, 51.9% of the
participating UK electorate (turnout was 72.2% of the electorate)
voted to leave the EU. 1.9% is a miniscule majority to offset the rest of 48.1%
as minority. Thus 34.5% (72.2x51.9) of
British electorate is deciding fate of 100%, but now trapped in concerns of
trade matters with EU and cheaper labour from Eastern Europe etc. Cheerleaders
of Brexit are in a predicament. Was
Britain earlier decision to join EU by a majority right or wrong? Education alone does not bestow
wisdom when considered in the political context.
USA voted for Mr. Trump as President because of
racial considerations, promises of getting rid of Islamic conflicts worldwide--
especially US’s continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan- and for ejection
of neighboring illegal Mexican, Puerto-Ricans immigrants. That would make USA a
safer place, was so believed. But the
honeymoon with Trump ended within a few weeks. Americans realized that-- a
democratic country cannot be run like a CEO of a corporate entity by executive
orders; illegal immigrants are the cheapest channels of services; while Iraq/Afghanistan
and Islamic clashes have been historically messed up. Expectations of the
people stand belied especially when the Russian role in US presidential
election is under investigation. Numerical majority to be considered as
determining majority may not be right. That again validates Socrates.
Prime Minister Modi came in at the very right
moment in 2014 when there was a policy paralysis. He sincerely offered a dream
world of minimum governance, improved socio-economic conditions, induction of
new technologies, doubling farmers’ income, “acche din”, dealing with Pakistan
from position of strength, creating an aura of powerful nation in the world and
vowed to eliminate corruption.
People believed in his avatar as political
messiah. His decision of demonetization
though understood as ethical, has created deeply divided opinion of supporters
and detractors. In the short term, GDP has seen a declining curve with loss of
jobs in the informal economy as reported in the media. GST—as a work in
progress—has too been terribly mishandled in detailing. Prices of farm produce
are lower—affecting Agri-income. PSU banks are riddled with rising NPAs while
political blame game goes on. Exports are tepid.
Supporters of Mr. Modi are optimistic of long
term benefits while others see more pain in coming months. A section of the
society, especially traders and small businesses are now brooding over his
initiatives. The common complaint is
that he over promised. The pain in undergoing real transformation undertaken by
Mr. Modi is quite severe that is incompatible with mindset of diversity of Indian
society. These very people are now questioning that under whose mandate the
pain is being inflicted while many good things (like Jan Dhan account, Swacch Bharat,
Ease of doing business etc) he initiated are taken for granted.
Here the issue is not that Mr. Modi
overpromised but lack of awareness in the people about tangible reforms and
progress—and not merely tinkering of reforms. New technology and novel policy
profiles will bring in creative destruction.
When arrays of decisions are made for the
larger welfare of the nation and society, the prevailing systems and the
society should be able to absorb shocks, for which India is not ready. Perhaps
Socrates was again right that the ruler, the ruled, the reform and the system
should all be in harmony for progress. But such an ideal situation cannot exist
in this world of imperfection.
No comments:
Post a Comment