Messages, nuances and globalisation

The World Social Forum concluded in Mumbai. Next began the World Economic Forum in Davos. But even as an intensely stimulating energy of dissent swelled at the WSF, I kept feeling the ground slipping from under our feet.

Why do I say this when it is clear that the WSF message -- the need for a fair and just world -- is gaining ground? Because the message is in danger of being lost in pedantic, ideological and, allow me to say, simplistic prose. The terminology of the so-called anti-globalisation group is becoming its biggest problem.

I know that the voices -- mine included -- possess nuances. They have changed with changing realities. But our postures haven't.

The challenge is to mutate the message so that we not only capture the space for dissent, but also create the space for change. Otherwise, in this deafening multilogue, we will be the biggest losers.

Let me dissect some messages with you. Are we anti-privatisation per se or against mafia-privatisation that is done without restraint or regulation? Consider water services, for instance.

It is true that big corporations see water as a lucrative business. And as a lucrative business, they prefer to service the rich at the cost of the poor.

They are greedy for profits, if necessary, at the cost of the environment. But it is equally important to accept that the water-supply system is not working in the country.

The public-sector utilities that see water as a social good also make sure that the poor and the rich do not get much water and definitely not clean water. But while the rich can buy bottled water, the poor cannot.

In this system, water has been commodified. But because we still believe that water is a social good, the rich end up benefiting.

Therefore, you cannot avoid the need to reform the water sector. What you have to determine are principles and a reform framework. For this, we have to accept that water is an "economic good" for some.

Nevertheless, we can still ensure that water remains a social good for many. Even as we accept that water is priced, we can make sure the framework that society sets is based on principles of social justice.

I would argue that everyone should get a certain quota of clean water as a human right. The rest is paid for. The more you use, the more you pay. For this, you need to install water meters so that distributive justice is ensured.

The private water sector comes in, if necessary, only after this policy and a regulatory framework is set up. It can run sewage plants and water supply systems.

But it does not determine the policy. If the poor need to be subsidised by the rich, it should be done as part of the agreement.

Therefore, I would not be against the private sector per se. I would also not be for or against subsidies per se.

But I would definitely rule against the current system, which subsidises rich farmers of the US, the European Union or the middle-class of Delhi.

The same is the case with trade or globalisation. To be against globalisation does not mean being against the economic and technological interdependence of modern society.

Surely, that would be silly; this structure is virtually impossible to dismantle now. But what we must do is get it reworked in everyone's interest. Almost everyone agrees today that the system, particularly the global trading system, is rigged against the poor.

Similarly, I fail to understand how we can be completely for or dead-against the government. I agree governments should not run hotels or airlines.

At the same time, believing the private sector will do all is equally ludicrous. Governments will have to invest in public services. The irony is that the private vehicle is subsidised, while the bus is not.

We are investing in massive highways and systematically decimating our railway system. But if we don't accept the need for reform in the railway, the public education or health systems, we will be fooling ourselves.

Speaking at the WSF, writer Arundhati Roy said: "It's not good enough to be right. Sometimes, if only in order to test our resolve, it's important to win something."

I agree with her. But I argue that to win, we need to engage and capture the middle ground and paint it in the colours we want.

Polarising the message simply doesn't help. It rebounds, makes caricatures of us. Good to listen to. Easy to dismiss.