Human Development Report 2004; Oxford University Press; Price: Rs.495; 285 pp

This is the time of the year when this reviewer — and increasingly I believe right-thinking people all over the world — remember the great Pakistani economist, the late Mahbub-Ul-Haq. By all accounts a true nationalist who was forced into voluntary exile by the succession of tin-pot generals and corrupt self-serving politicians (Benazir and Nawaz) in Pakistan, Ul-Haq served the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for many years as its chief economist. In the mid-1980s, presumably fed up with the unwarranted propaganda which third world leaders and dictators in particular trumpet about the wonderful progress made in societies under their watch, Ul-Haq devised a human development index (HDI) to measure governments’ actual attainments in raising living standards in countries around the world.

The seasonal fruit of his pioneering effort is UNDP’s Human Development Report (HDR) published in July every year. For reasons best known to themselves, Indian economists and the media tend to accord a tepid welcome to UNDP’s topical, subject-driven, inevitably well-argued and indeed brilliant HDRs — the labour of love of hundreds of highly qualified economists and social scientists from around the world. But then praise for any genuinely innovative intellectual effort is rare in this perverse, backbiting society built by Nehru’s socialist heirs now transformed into loud but unconvincing liberalisers.

These painstakingly researched annual reports are more than dry statistical compilations. Every year the HDR is built around a human development proposition which is advocated and examined in detail. For instance in the millennium year 2000 the annual report of UNDP discussed the theme ‘Human rights and human development’ in extenso. In 2002 its message was ‘Deepening democracy in a fragmented world’ and last year it was ‘Millennium development goals’. The purpose of these chosen themes supported by case histories and statistical evidence collected from around the world is self-evident: to advise lackadaisical governments and intellectually barren establishments on ways and means to enrich the lives of their subjects and transform this lonely planet into a habitation of stable, prosperous nation states living in harmony with each other.

In HDR 2004 the learned authors led by the India-born Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen advance the case for ‘Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world’ as an important input for human and societal development. Against the backdrop of rising religious fundamentalism and grim portents of an imminent clash of civilizations, Human Development Report 2004 argues in favour of respecting and accommodating minority cultures, which contrary to popular demagoguery, stabilises and enriches societies. “Human development is first and foremost about allowing people to lead the kind of life they choose — and providing them with the tools and opportunities to make those choices… Unless people who are poor and marginalised — who are more often than not members of religious or ethnic minorities or migrants — can influence political action at local and national levels, they are unlikely to get equitable access to jobs, schools, hospitals, justice, security and other basic services,” says the foreword.

Quite obviously the proposition that cultural plurality adds to the sum of human happiness and makes societies strong, isn’t likely to go down well with governments in nation states in which dominant majorities impose their writ, mores and cultures on religious and ethnic minorities. In the developing nations of the third world in particular dominant religions, castes, tribes and ethnic majorities tend to misinterpret democracy as the right of majorities to grab the gains of economic development and ram legislation imposing their cultural norms and mores upon minorities. But such people — including our own hindutva nationalists — have a flawed perspective of democracy. A truly democratic society is one which respects minority rights and cultural freedoms within the framework of liberal egalitarian laws (as the chapter on fundamental rights in the Constitution of India uequivocally endorses), rather than one which simplistically fulfills majority aspirations. This misinterpretation of democracy by the right-wing BJP cost it dear in the May general election and toppled its coalition government.

Nevertheless there are several popular perceptions — described as ‘myths’ by the authors of HDR 2004 â€” which are advanced in favour of uniform laws and homogenisation of societal structures. These perceptions are squarely addressed and refuted in this valuable contribution to the global debate on the pros and cons of cultural liberties and diversity within nation states. Among the myths refuted: that people’s ethnic identities compete with their attachment to the state; ethnic groups are prone to violent conflict with each other; cultural liberty requires defence of traditional inegalitarian and opressive practices; ethnically diverse countries are less able to develop; some cultures have inherent democratic values while others do not, so there is a trade-off between accommodating certain cultures and promoting democracy. Paucity of space does not permit even a summarisation of the persuasive arguments backed by empirical data and evidence, advanced to reject these popular arguments in favour of intolerance and homogenisation. But they are strongly recommended reading for liberals who feel it incumbent upon themselves to propagate the case for minority cultures and communities.

Its five chapters which examine the challenges of conceding cultural liberties and celebrating diversity, and special essays by (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Shirin Ebadi, Nelson Mandela and Hamid Karzai among others apart, as per established practice, HRD 2004 contains 33 comparative inter-nation development tables which measure the achievements of governments around the world in delivering food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare etc to their people. These tables highlight the pathetic record of all governments in post-independence India to provide the most basic prerequisites of human development to this nation’s long-suffering citizens.

Though tepidly received by the Indian intelligentsia, HDR 2004 should be stocked in the reference library of every self-respecting school, college and academic institution. For the simple reason that it graphically exposes the world’s failed states (and their ruling establishments) and shows what a long way this country has to travel to attain developed nation status.

Dilip Thakore

Global democracy manifesto

The Age of Consent by George Monbiot; Harper Collins; Price: Rs.250; 274 pp

If there’s one characteristic that distinguishes polemicist, columnist and anti-globalisation activist George Monbiot from most other activists, it is the adventurous life he’s had in pursuit of his ideals. His curriculum vitae includes being shot at, beaten by military police, being shipwrecked and stung by hornets during investigative journeys in Brazil, Indonesia and East Africa. He almost died of cerebral malaria in Kenya, after which he returned to Britain. On a protest march, security guards drove a metal spike through his foot. This man is lucky to be alive.

Monbiot is well known for his unambiguous views on civil rights, opposition to war, and such issues. His columns in the British newspaper The Guardian have a wide readership and his is an outstandingly articulate voice against exploitation of the developing nations by the “global dictatorship of vested interests”.

In The Age of Consent Monbiot lambasts the newly emergent current world order of “corporate and financial globalisation”, and suggests a global democratic revolution under the aegis of a “messy coalition” known as the Global Justice Movement to take on the newly emergent dictatorship of vested interests.

According to Monbiot, the first premise is that already the new globalised world order has failed, in that millions suffer under it without hope for the foreseeable future. Monbiot warns that while nationally the western industrial nations subscribe to — and practice — democracy, internationally they have little time for it. The United Nations, which was promoted to ensure peace, human rights and international justice, has all along been controlled by the five principal victors of the Second World War who are permanent members of the security council. “The World Bank and IMF… are run on the principle of one dollar, one vote. The WTO’s… principal decisions have been made during the ‘Green Room’ negotiations, which are convened and controlled by the European Union, the US, Canada and Japan,” he says accurately.

The apposite response he insists, is democracy on a global scale. If democracy despite limitations is the highest form of governance that nations have discovered, why can’t the world be governed according to its principles? This leads him to recommend representative global government, through an institution he christens the World Parliament.

“A key determinant of the success of a World Parliament is that its members are seen to have no connection to the governments of the nations from which they come. This helps defend them from the pressures that governments might exert. If the United States told a member from Yemen that unless she changed her policies it would cut the aid it gives her country’s government, she could reply that the decisions she makes have nothing to do with the government. This is not an assembly formed by nation states, but an assembly formed by the world’s people. It is global, not international,” writes Monbiot.

While the first half of the book calls for political equality, the second half advocates economic egalitarianism. It starts off by exposing the hypocrisy of the world’s financial institutions (World Bank and IMF), and how they have helped widen the chasm between the rich and poor. The global economy, the author argues with ample supportive evidence, has been rigged to make the rich world richer and the poor poorer.

But since globalisation offers the only way capital can flow into poorer economies, Monbiot presents an alternative system based on globalisation, an International Clearing Union, which would promote equitable distribution of wealth. And with the passage of time as the World Parliament and International Clearing Union achieve greater legitimacy, the others — like the UN and its agencies — would become redundant.

This is an important book about serious issues. It articulates the case of the thousands of protestors from around the world who travel long distances to voice their warnings and objectives when WTO and World Economic Forum deliberations are held. Though the inarticulate misgivings of these protestors tend to be cursorily dismissed by the media, there’s no gainsaying that some of the issues they raise — debt write offs for the poorest countries; the continuous construction of nuclear plants for power generation; global climate change and fair international trade — are of vital importance for the development of a just international order in a rapidly globalising world. Monbiot’s proposals to replace the Age of Coercion with an Age of (global) Consent don’t provide all the answers, but they crystallise several vital issues for further debate in an Age of Confusion.

Dev Sukumar