The Hindu Business Line : Epochal, absolutely epochal

The Supreme Court has offered its view that employees of government do not have a mechanistic "right to strike". It is epochal since it creates room for ordinary people, and because it debunks divisiveness. The Supreme Court has offered all a chance to re-integrate so that India can grow into a liberal democracy that allows room for ordinary people.

IT IS said that government in a representative democracy is of the people, by the people and for the people. Whether it — democratic representative government — is practised in a mutualistic manner that comprises all social and human dimensions or not, its practice in the financial context is complete and inescapable. Ordinary people pay for internal government and security, and external affairs and security. The payment is made through direct and indirect taxes.

By contrast, railways, energy supply and other utilities, mail delivery and airlines work on user charges. They work on clear piece-by-piece, minute-by-minute, person-by-person rules of transactions between users and providers. Therefore, they are businesses rather than components of government.

Private firms can and do operate railways, energy plants, utilities, mail systems and airlines. Private firms, militant groups, fundamentalists and terrorist organisations run so-called governments in strife-torn locales, illiberal theocracies and countries ravaged by civil war. Such locales, enclaves and countries are least likely to be human, modern and civilised.

The liberal left would not admire these governments nor would these governments allow the liberal left any space and freedom of expression.

In a civilised and modern state, government is run by public institutions. But there is no clear piece-by-piece, minute-by-minute, person-by-person relationship between government and the people.

Citizens pay taxes. But the quantity and quality of internal government and security provided to a citizen is not calibrated to the magnitude of taxes.

Liberal democracies value the lives and welfare of ordinary people. The liberal left admires such liberal democracies. It gets unlimited space and freedom of expression.

Ordinary people's faith

Ordinary people pay taxes because they repose faith in their government that their government — not merely an `it' — will not fail them after collecting taxes. Their lives are built on trust. Why? Taxes are dissimilar to user charges. There is no association between taxes paid by citizens and services rendered by government. If their government fails to render services, there is no way ordinary people can strike against their government. Ordinary people and taxpayers can at worst feel frustrated. If in frustration they involve in so-called strikes, the loss is entirely to their account.

On a net-net basis, ordinary people fund more than 97 per cent of all taxes and savings used by government. But there is no certainty that savers and taxpayers will get the necessary services from government.

Wages, earnings, incomes and profits of ordinary people fall when government fails to render services of specified quality and magnitude.

The health of ordinary people declines too. For example, women of many arid parts of India walk nearly 7 km to fetch drinking water. Their life expectancy is less than 49 years, despite two or fewer childbirths. But declining wages and health of ordinary people — at least 90 per cent of the population — may not agitate the government. Thus, ordinary people have to have faith in the government. Trust, faith and superstition are healing emotions when ordinary people have no access to security.

At least 90 per cent of India's population trusts the government. And they have no particular rights to access anything, not even drinking water!

Us versus them

Employees of government have secure jobs, secure incomes, secure access to healthcare and then secure pensions after retirement.

Trust is unnecessary when people have access to unprecedented security. In such secure circumstances, the "right to strike" is a mechanistic necessity. It goes back a century or more when feudal rulers, tyrannical factory and plantation owners, alien monarchs, imperialists and right-wing dictators ruled the land. Seeking more was a way of life because the giver was correctly deemed to be external to the seeker.

The "us-versus-them" model dominated trade unionism. But the "us-versus-them" model is a poor descriptor of democratic representative government and its employees. The government is by the people, for the people and of the people. So, who are the "us"? Who are the "they"? If "us" refers to employees of government, then "they" should be the government, which, in turn, is of the people.

That is, the "us-versus-them" model that endorses and guarantees the "right to strike" allows employees of government the right to strike against ordinary people. But ordinary people will have no right to strike because government is by the people and for the people.

Moreover, the "right to strike" has no relevance to ordinary people because they pay taxes first and then wait to be served. If ordinary people struck work, there is less work to be done by the government.

If "us" refers to ordinary people and employees of the government, then "they" should be government alone. Such government is then neither democratic nor representative. It is not of the people, not by the people and, certainly, not for the people.

That is, the "us-versus-them" model negates everything that India stands for. Nationhood, Independence Day, Republic Day, the Constitution and elections are all negated and mocked at when "us" collectively refers to ordinary people and employees of government.

Also, when "us" refers to ordinary people and employees of government, women of India's horrendously arid parts will not have to walk nearly 7 km to fetch drinking water. But they do. Therefore, "us" refers to employees of government. There is no room for ordinary people in "us".

Horrendous! Debunking divisiveness

India is a divided society comprising rulers, employees of the government and ordinary people. Surely, this is not what the liberal left would want to endorse. There are no rulers in a modern, civil state. But there should be great leaders such as President Fidel Castro of Cuba. The Supreme Court has offered its view that employees of government do not have a mechanistic "right to strike".

It is epochal since it creates room for ordinary people, and because it debunks divisiveness. The Supreme Court has offered all a chance to re-integrate so that India can grow into a liberal democracy that allows room for ordinary people.

(The author is a financial analyst. Feedback may be sent to indiagrow@sify.com)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Gaps in SEBI's case

China and India — Is democracy the defining difference?

Per capita income growth in the States

Viva la Huelga!

Epochal, absolutely epochal

Right to strike

Political discipline