Adonis Diaries

Political or social reforms first? (November 20, 2008)

You might say that this is not the same thing as which came first hen or egg, that political and social reform should go in tandem.

Excuse me; I am talking of under-developed States with scares resources and unlimited problems economically and structurally as a society and as a political system.

Suppose, as is the case in all under-developed States, that the struggle revolves around the hegemony of castes (close self-autonomous sects) for ruling the country and for benefiting the most from the privileges of setting the laws to all, with large loopholes for the few powerful clans in the economy and in running the State.

Suppose that the electoral laws are biased toward one set of castes and the remaining castes have no democratic alternatives for reform.

Suppose that caste systems are fundamentally structured to prevent serious communication among communities, and the economy is based on internal production within each caste.

Suppose furthermore that caste systems have interests in weak central governments and thus, central governments have no means to enforcing any modern reform in equitability, in judiciary processes and administrative structure that hire according to competence instead of quota among castes.

I am talking about States plagued with demographic explosions are eating up any increase in GNP.

I am talking about States where their malignant forces prefer to focus the energies of their people in fighting their bordering States.

I am talking about people preferring to board on make shift rafts in open oceans just to flee a hell hole of a country or surmounting tighter immigration laws at the risk of their lives.

Are we getting the picture? 

There is no serious strong central government in internal security forces, army, administration, or syndicates or stable long term political processes agreeable to the vast majority of the people.

Then, how can social reform proceeds?

We all wish that the State budget be equitably distributed to all districts so that a sense of equality and autonomy are recognized.

We all wish that the armed forces are proportionally integrated in the number of ranking officers and soldiers of the various castes, the internal security forces are not biased toward specific castes, and the personnel in the State administration are hired on qualifications.

We all wish that electoral laws are based on an alternative of proportional system and that political parties are not formed based on sectarian affiliations.

We all wish to have a general central planning for the economy and the infra-structure.

We all want potable water.  We all want electricity, at least distributed equitably.

We all want public schools of high quality.  We all want hospitals of high quality.

We all want general health coverage.  We all want practiced physicians in the same ratio to district population.

We all want major industries in each district.  We all want jobs and opportunities available equitably.  Then, how should we proceed?

Without open communication among communities, and equitable and just laws in freedom of speech, beliefs, human rights, gender equality in law, and most importantly, preserving our freedom after we freely spoke and demonstrated peacefully, without fair education, safety and health how can we unite, understand our limitations and capabilities?

Political or social reform first? Is it still that obvious?

How the developed States transformed into Nations?

How they managed to take reforms for granted?  They surely all went through the same arduous and costly errors but they finally achieved stable and fair processes for change and reform.

What were the main ingredients and factors that offered the qualitative jump from under-developed States to developed nations?

Billions of people in under-developed States want to know!

May be if the “colonial” powers take a break in destabilizing the poorer States then maybe time will offer a beginning of a resolution.

Maybe if the rich States listen to the concerned people on the field and away from their bureaucratic paper shuffling and touring the higher personalities, and  then to agree to support any local reconciliation that does not conform to their “moral cultural” standards then we might begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It is a process, a long process to follow and burning steps is a sure sign to catastrophe.

If the rich States tone down their public image campaigns on their favorite brand of democracy (that is not working well anyway), refrain of pre-emptive wars, forbid all kinds of arms shipments, and focus their financial and economical aids on micro improvements in education, health facilities and small to medium industries then we might be taking the proper track to development and vanquishing famine, diseases, illiteracy, and indignity to human kind.

It would be a healthy boost to morale and confidence to the under-developed States, recognized by the United Nations assembly, if the votes of these States in the UN are given equal weight as the rich States and “veto-power” Super-States.

Permitting the under-developed States to share in the responsibilities of studying the multitudes of World problems that the UN has to grapple with and listening to their “modest” alternative resolutions to problems affecting famine, diseases, and illiteracy is a huge step forward.

The most crucial need of the under-developed States is the means to disseminate free opinions on a large scale.  This is the domain where the western States should insist in pressing on to the powers to be and aid in the installation of telecommunication technologies and appropriate laws that safeguard free speech and dissemination.

How developed nations were formed? They won their civil wars: There was a clear winner!