Cooperative Living: The Order of Tomorrow

Cooperative Living: The Order of Tomorrow
Saumitra Mohan


In the early 1990s after the debilitating and insidious Cold War ended symbolized by the unification of the two Germanys and fall of the gigantic USSR, people started visualizing a ‘New World Order’ as George Bush Senior christened it hoping that the ensuing peace dividend would usher in a better organized world with a better deal for the people. The end of the Cold War also symbolized humanity’s urge for progress and peace over underdevelopment and war. But we all know too well that since then many new intractable and more complex problems have taken over including international terrorism, religious fundamentalism, proliferation of small arms, proliferation of nuclear weapons, surge in refugees, complex environmental issues, drug trafficking et al. But simultaneously there have also been some very positive developments and they include the increase in frequency and density of international cooperation, international trade, international regimes, rise of positive non-state actors including MNCs, United Nations and WTO,

While all this has been developing during the 1990s and towards the beginning of the second millennium, there has also been a talk on over the issue of a ‘Minimal State’. Movers and shakers of the intellectual world influenced by the anarchist school of thought, have even been recommending the rolling back of the state. They felt that in an anarchical world (where there is no recognized and overarching hegemon or sovereign to preside over the world and where everyone is left to fend for its own) the , as postulated by the celebrated Hedley Bull, where the states often act as rational actors propelled by the ‘Security Dilemma’ (where one country’s defense preparation urges others to do the same thereby initiating a non-ending chain reaction) facing them hitting each other like the billiard balls in an attempt to get past each other to get to the pocket as quickly as possible. But as the states behave so, they have also been endangering the larger interest of the Comity of Nations including international peace and security.

At a time, when the world is past Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave and experiencing a much more advanced phase of boom in information and communication, when any and every incident of some importance anywhere affect the people everywhere in one way or the other, when many of the complicated global problems could only be solved through a global initiative and cooperation, some states have been behaving irresponsibly feeling that they could do it on their own be they impelled by their petty national interest or their urge to dominate the world. They have to realize that the global problems have to be solved globally and they can not think of a country-specific solution riding roughshod over the general well-being of the people around them. Indulging in activities of one-upmanship over their neighbouring countries or other members of the Comity of Nations or meddling in others’ affairs or encouraging negative forces of destruction would eventually redound to them and devour them like the fictional Frankenstein’s monster or our own Bhasmasur. It is very much natural that in one or two very powerful and ambitious countries start behaving irresponsibly eying only their own petty national interest without caring for global opinion or global interest, then today or tomorrow there would be a negative reaction against them, resulting in the bandwagoning of the weak and not-so-weak nations against them isolating them and making it a sort of pariah in the world community.

Last one and a half decade’s empirical learnings since the Cold War ended has amply proved that while it is definitely not possible to completely roll back the state and simply leave the state to be tended and fended by the non-state actors like the international organizations backed by international laws and regimes and MNCs. The East Asian Crisis of the mid-1990s and the Brazil-Mexican meltdown have also amply underscored the need for the continued existence of the state though sans its many conventional features or adjuncts. But people are unanimous about the need for a ‘Minimal State’ which would continue to exercise the exclusive monopoly over legitimate use of force, as Max Weber suggested, as well as its continued existence as a Welfare State to look after the not-so-strong members of the society. It has been rightly suggested that the state has no business to be in the business and accordingly many have been liberalizing, privatizing and globalizing themselves to keep up and catch up with those who have already taken headstarts and India is no exception to this phenomenon. But there are still areas where private sectors are still not venturing into or have failed after having so ventured because of the huge capital, time-lag and risks involved e.g. railways, roads and general postal services. And there are areas where the state has to continue to function side by side because the profit motive of the private players may turn many basic services like health out of bound for the common people. The state has also to be there not only to take over from them whenever they fail but also to enforce the basic rules of the game including maintaining the requisite law and order.

It has been noticed that many states still prefer directly dispensing the various amenities or facilities including disbursement of unemployment allowance or providing reservation in services to the weaker sections of the society as part of their affirmative action. While these are desirable but they are not necessary conditions for amelioration of their life. What is more important is the building of capacity among its citizens so that they can stand on their own feet. As someone said, instead of giving fish, it is always advisable to teach how to fish and then provide the person concerned with a fishing rod.

Rich, resourceful countries as well as rich and resourceful members of even poor countries (as there always pockets of affluence in every society) have to realize that it is in their own enlightened interest to take care of the not-so-rich and not-so-resourceful other because if, as Marx visualized, resentment among such deprived members of the society continue to build, then it would explode to their own detriment. International migration, international terrorism, religious fundamentalism, global environmental threat and the problems like drug trafficking are, in fact, the result the inequity and injustice seen in the international world order as also in any society.

So, it is always advisable for members of the world community to keep working in harmony and unison to realize the objectives as specified in the Charter of the United Nations trying to ensure the general well-being of the people of the world.