 |
| The Hindu Newspaper Editorial Vocabulary : 30-November-2018 |
The case for a progressive international
Only a global alliance can reshape the regulatory regime to make it more democratic
Earlier this year, it was revealed that India is
facing legal claims from international investors in as many as 23 arbitration
cases, before various tribunals. These claims, worth billions of
dollars, arise out of bilateral investment treaties between India and other
states. One striking
feature of such treaties is that they allow international investors (primarily
MNCs) to initiate a dispute directly in an international tribunal, bypassing
the state’s own constitutional system and its courts. Often, the disputes revolve around
measures that were triggered by public health emergencies, economic crises or
other matters directly involving public welfare — which would therefore be
permissible under the Constitution, but which a corporation believes have
negatively impacted its financial interests.
Transnational issues
This reveals an important truth about the
contemporary, globalised world: issues that were earlier resolved within a
sovereign state in
accordance with its constitutional system have now acquired a transnational
character. There are other contemporary examples: because of its attempts to
make essential medicines affordable through amendments to its Patent Act, India
has come
under pressure from the U.S. and the European Union (at the behest
of prominent pharmaceutical companies), while finding support and emulation
in countries like South Africa and Thailand. Indeed, in 2011, the EU seized
shipments of life-saving Indian drugs that were being transported to Africa and
Latin America, on the basis that it could apply its more restrictive patent and
customs laws to goods in transit through its territory.
Clearly, while global problems cannot be solved
without nation-states, nation-states cannot solve their problems on their own.
India’s battle to preserve affordable access to medicines is part of a larger
struggle, where participation in the global intellectual property regime has
severely constrained the ability of countries to respond to public health
crises. Whatever a country’s Constitution may say about the right to life and
the right to health for its citizens, it will still be dragged before an
international tribunal if it attempts to forestall or mitigate a public health crisis
by lifting patent restrictions upon, for example, a life-saving drug. The point
is not only about who finally succeeds in litigation — rather, it is that the final
decision is taken by a set of individuals who are beyond the structures of
accountability that are established in democratic and constitutional states.
As pointed out above, the transnational character
of these issues suggests that the response cannot succeed if it is unilateral.
In the latest version of the model bilateral investment treaty drafted by
India, for example, the scope of investor-state dispute settlement by
international tribunals has been curtailed. But it takes many to tango: until
the perils
of bypassing national constitutional systems are accepted more broadly,
individual attempts will fall short.
The issues are not limited to conflicts before
international forums. Recent months have seen clashes between national
regulatory authorities and the corporations that drive the new “gig economy”,
such as Uber. In October, Uber and Ola drivers in Mumbai called for an
indefinite strike
over low pay, after a similar strike in Delhi earlier. In the U.K.,
the EU and various States in the U.S., there has been protracted and bitter litigation
over the legal obligations that Uber owes to its drivers. The conflict may take
different forms in different countries, but each time there are striking
similarities, stemming
from Uber’s business model, which is transnational in character.
And, like in the case of investment treaties, it is often difficult for one
country to tackle the problem alone – especially when the corporation is global
in character, and can issue a credible threat of withdrawing substantial levels
of investment. Nor is worker power, as long as it is confined within borders,
and not trans-nationalised, sufficient to combat the power of MNCs.
The example of DiEM25
It is always helpful to look elsewhere, to see
how people in other parts of the world have attempted to engage with such
issues. A recent example is that of the Democracy in Europe Movement 25.
DiEM25 arose after the debt crisis in Greece had resulted in a wide-ranging
“structural adjustment programme” imposed upon that country by the European
Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (or
“the troika”).
This included severe austerity measures (including cuts to public
funding, resulting in mass unemployment) and widespread privatisation, in
direct contravention
of the publicly expressed will of the people, through both elections and a
public referendum.
The central insight of DiEM25 — one of whose
co-founders, Yanis Varoufakis, was Greece’s Finance Minister during the debt
crisis — is precisely that today a progressive movement oriented towards social
justice and fundamental rights cannot succeed if it is constrained within
national borders. Many of the fundamental decisions that shape national policy
(with wide-ranging consequences) are simply beyond the ken of nation-states themselves.
For this reason, DiEM25 identifies as “pan-European”, and isolates a range of
issues “currently left in the hands of national governments powerless to act
upon them” — including public debt, banking, inadequate investment, migration,
and rising poverty. In its manifesto, DiEM25 returns these issues to democratic
control, but also acknowledges that the solutions needed to achieve this can
only come from transnational action.
Another important insight of the DiEM25 manifesto
is that the world today is based on “the reduction of all political relations
into relations of power masquerading as merely technical decisions.”
For example, what steps a country like India must take to ensure the
availability of life-saving drugs (and not only during a public health crisis)
is a decision that must be taken democratically and politically, within the
constitutional framework. At present, however, it always remains ultimately
subject to a “technical decision” (potentially taken by an international
tribunal) about whether India has breached its obligations under an
international intellectual property rights treaty regime. What needs to be done
is to reshape that regime to make it more democratic, an effort that, by its
very nature, cannot be undertaken by a single country.
The focus on democracy is particularly important
with respect to a third issue: the increasing role of technology in our daily
lives. This debate has come to the fore recently, with the long-running
conflict over Aadhaar, and the draft DNA Profiling Bill. The relationship
between technology and human freedoms will be vital in the future. It is
therefore particularly interesting that, through the evolving concept of
“technological sovereignty”, DiEM25 has drawn a specific link between
technology and democracy, which can help us think through contemporary issues
such as platform monopolies, the ubiquity of AI in public decision-making
(including on public welfare), etc.
An international new deal
In September, writing for The Guardian,
U.S. politician Bernie Sanders called for a “progressive international”: “an
international progressive movement that mobilizes behind a vision of shared
prosperity, security and dignity for all people, and that addresses the massive
global inequality that exists, not only in wealth but in political power.” Mr.
Varoufakis responded to this by calling for an “international new deal”.
Movements such as DiEM25, which have sprung up in various parts of the world, serve
as potential blueprints and models for what a “progressive international” may
look like. It is a conversation that progressive movements in India must take heed
of, and engage with, if we are to adequately address the transnational problems
that face us today.
01. Progressive (adjective) – modern, liberal,
forward-looking.
02. Arbitration (noun) – adjudication, mediation,
conciliation/peacemaking.
03. Tribunals (noun) – court, court of justice,
court of law.
04. Striking (adjective) – noticeable, distinct,
marked/notable.
05. Bypassing (verb) – circumvent, avoid, dodge.
06. Revolve around (phrasal verb) – be concerned
with, be preoccupied with, focus/concentrate on.
07. Transnational (adjective) – involving/relating
to two/more countries.
08. In accordance with (phrase) – in agreement
with, in conformity with, in line with.
09. Come under (phrasal verb) – be subjected to.
10. Behest (noun) – request, requirement,
wish/desire.
11. Emulation (noun) – matching effort; imitation.
12. Forestall (verb) – pre-empt, obstruct,
prevent.
13. Litigation (noun) – legal action, legal case,
legal proceeding.
14. Curtailed (verb) – reduce, decrease, lessen.
15. It takes many to tango (phrase) – many people,
who involved in a problem, must accept the blame or an activity which needs
many parties to participate in it to happen. (tango is a ballroom dance which
requires two partners moving in relation to each other, sometimes in tandem
(alongside each other), sometimes in opposition).
16. Perils (noun) – difficulties, dangers, risks.
17. Fall short (phrasal verb) – fail to
meet/reach, be deficient/inadequate.
18. Gig economy (noun) – a labour market characterised
by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work.
19. Protracted (verb) – prolong, extend, sustain.
20. Strike over(verb) – cause, appear, look.
21. Stemming from (verb) – arise from,
originate/emanate from, derive from.
22. Troika (noun) – a group of three (people,
institutions, countries and etc,.).
23. Austerity (noun) – financial distress,
deprivation, destitution/poverty.
24. Contravention (noun) – breach, non-compliance/non-observance,
neglect.
25. Insight (noun) – explanation/clarification,
revelation, understanding.
26. Ken (noun) – knowledge, awareness,
understanding.
27. Masquerading (noun) – pretence, deception,
dissimulation.
28. Obligations (noun) – condition, requirement;
moral imperative/responsibility.
29. Ubiquity (noun) – omnipresence; the state of
being everywhere.
30. Sprung up (phrasal verb) – develop/appear
(suddenly).
31. Heed (noun) – attention, notice, regard.
No comments:
Post a Comment