สำนักราชบัณฑิตยสภา

«“√ “√ √“™∫— ≥±‘µ¬ ∂“π ªï ∑’Ë Ú˜ ©∫— ∫∑’Ë Û °.§.-°.¬. ÚıÙı Chai-Anan Samudavanija ˆÒÛ ment of individuals. Democratization in my view is closely linked with the empower- ment of individuals, decentraliza- tion and participation. Hence it is closer to localization than to glo- balization. Will market-driven change automatically promote democracy, as well as transparency and Good Governance? There are conflicting views and experiences from Asia, Africa and Latin America. As observed by Deepak Nay- yar, “marketization and globaliza- tion in the developing world, so far, have provided the enthusiasm and the opportunities to the privileged few who are rich but not to the vast majority who are poor.” 3 Amartya Sen, while recognizing certain limitations of the market mecha- nism, firmly believes in its ability to create wealth unrivalled by any other known system. According to Sen, we have to supplement this mechanism, not replace it, to re- dress the ills of market-driven growth. Sen notes that “the successes of the market economy are not achieved single-handedly by the market alone. There is a crucial need for supplementation from other institutions.” Other institu- tions include the government, the legislature, the judiciary, the politi- cal parties, and the media. He then proposes a “new strategy,” which requires understanding how institutions complement one another, and a broad vision that encompasses protective security, participatory politics and transpa- rent accountability. While I agree fully with Sen that “growth with equity” has not in fact meaningfully trickled down to the poor, we have to ask why eco- nomic growth driven by the mar- ket is inherently inequitable. The cause may lie in treating the mar- ket as the core, and other institu- tions – cultural, social and politi- cal – as merely supplementar y parts. Everywhere in the world, the problems of the market economy cannot be addressed by further institutional supplementa- tion, but by a rearrangement of complementary institutions and their relationships to one another. Such a rearrangement requires re- positioning the “People’s Sector” vis-à-vis the market, so that human security, participatory politics and transparent accountability would have (at least) equal weight. I think Sen’s vision is still very con- ventional and, if followed by de- veloping countries, will jeopardize their nascent political democra- cies. Even in mature democracies, it will promote inequality rather than growth with equity. As Jacques Attali rightly points out, the market economy and demo- cracy – the twin pillars of Western civilization – are more likely to un- dermine than to support one another. The market economy is more dynamic than democracy. If there are no countervailing forces, market mechanisms and corrup- tion will eventually replace demo- cracy, leading to a “market dic- tatorship.” This new kind of dicta- torship is not political but eco- nomic in nature. I think Sen too easily takes the market for granted and is too op- timistic about its positive contribu- tion to humankind. Attali is more pessimistic. Attali warns that, in the absence of strong, counter- vailing democratic institutions, “political outcomes will be bought and sold, and the market will rule every element of public life from police protection, justice, educa- tion, and health to the very air we breathe, paving the way for the final victory of ‘corporate’ economic rights over individual human rights. Under such circumstances, Western civilization itself is bound to collapse.” 4 In Thailand, the market eco- nomy is already undermining de- mocracy largely because the “po- litical market” is not a free market in terms of entry and competition. The 1997 constitution has many entry barriers for small and me- dium-sized parties, preventing their competing with major politi- cal parties and with vested interest groups strongly backed by capital. Fifty years ago, Devid Easton defined politics as “the authorita- tive allocation of values in society.” 5 Now we are witnessing the decline of non-economic values in many Western societies. Industrial and post-industrial societies have been too preoccupied with what I call “value-addification,” at the ex- pense of preserving cultural and family values. The market eco-