Last week in this column I questioned the way many of us unthinkingly refer to ourselves as a "developing" country, drawing unfavourable comparisons with so-called "developed" societies such as Singapore or the USA. I pointed out that every understanding of "development" embodies specific cultural values which, in turn, rest on a specific world-view. In other words, "development" is a value-loaded term, and it embraces much more than economics.
The attempt to quantify and so calculate human "development" (whether in terms of GNP per capita or more sophisticated indices such as the HDI) is itself biased towards certain views of what makes up human flourishing. For only some cultural definitions of "development" can be quantified (income level being the most obvious). For instance, how do we mathematically measure the climate of fear in a society? Or the breakdown of personal relationships, the vulnerability of the disabled and elderly, unhappiness among ethnic minorities, declining quality in education and health services, the loss of cultural heritage, the homogenizing of tastes, and the deterioration in natural environments? These are some of the ways in which I would want to assess the health of a society. And, on these bases, I would want to affirm that in some ways I live in a much more "developed" society than many in the West, and in other ways a much more "under-developed" society than any in the West.
The quantification of "development" may serve another function. For it calls into being a new breed of "development consultants" and a new 'science" of "development" "economics". It has given not only employment but prominent social status to the directors of "development" institutions that have suddenly mushroomed everywhere. These employ expatriate and international experts who sell their "knowledge" (which usually means nothing more than a set of statistical data) to Third World governments. They live, move and have their being in the first class compartments of aircraft and the business lounges of five-star hotels - from which they conduct "seminars" on the alleviation of poverty. They are then paid enormous salaries by poor governments easily bewitched by the idea that the higher the fee the better the service. The "development game" often brings more lucre to the rich than it does to the poor....
The most prominent among the international experts who grace our shores are the men from the World Bank, the IMF and the ADB. It is often forgotten that these institutions are basically money-lenders. Many in the Third World who suffer under repressive or arbitrary political rule are grateful that the World Bank has recently begun to use Aid (an often misleading euphemism for a commercial loan) as a lever to hold national governments more accountable to their own people and to international opinion. The inclusion of environmental accounting in projects funded by the Wor1d Bank is also welcome, given the notorious laxity of most governments in this regard.
However, there is another side to this coin. Unlike governments, these institutions represent power without corresponding responsibility. They are accountable to no one save themselves, and thus undermine the struggle for democracy in many countries. They can impose unpopular policies on national governments and simply stand by and watch as these governments are toppled either by bloody coup d'etats or a disgruntled electorate. Despite their enormous influence on local populations, they have few mechanisms to receive intelligent feedback from the grass-roots. Governments rise and governments fall, but like Tennyson's brook the World Bank and the IMF go on forever.
Of course it would be foolish to use the IMF, World Bank and Western governments as scapegoats for the economic mess in many parts of the Third World. Consider, for example, a country like Sri Lanka. Through a combination of short-sighted policies ("get rich quick"), ethnic and religious chauvinisms, corruption, nepotism and autocratic politics, we have succeeded in turning a lavishly endowed, highly literate and stable country into one of the poorest, most violent and crime-infested societies in the world. Our sorry dependance on the IMF and World Bank is a tacit admission of our own failures in leadership, in politics as much as in commerce.
Indeed, many governments of the Third World have an appalling record when it comes to meeting the basic needs of their people in priority areas such as health, education and shelter. Massive sums are spent on military expenditure in some of the poorest countries of Africa and Asia. Pakistan boasts of possessing some of the world's best fighter jets and anti-aircraft systems, and invests six times as much on its military as on health, education and agricultural extension combined. But Western governments aid and abet such wasteful military expenditure and corruption in these countries. Condemnation of autocratic rule in the Third World is hypocritical when it is America and Europe that supply the autocrats with the weapons of destruction, often used against their own people. That some of the most corrupt and brutal regimes have been the staunchest allies of the "free world" is a well-known and scandalous fact of recent political history. Even that arch-fiend of the American media, Sadam Hussein, was installed in power by a coup d'etat which had the backing of the CIA. It was only when the puppet started pulling the strings, and American strategic interests in the region began to be threatened, that the US government embarked on its moral and military crusade against Iraq.
So, we come back to the images of "development" that seduce our political and business elites. Words and images are more powerful instruments of domination than armies, machines or dictators. This is why every great social revolutionary has known that political revolution without a conceptual revolution is useless. shouldn't we be encouraging our economists and policy-makers to re-think the concepts they have inherited - given that so much more than statistical manipulation is involved in economic issues? And, even more fundamentally, shouldn't our schools, universities and the media be encouraging discussion and debate on the level of world views (e.g., what kind of society do we want to live in, and why?), rather than serving as tools in the hands of commercial propagandists?
Greeting us with a smile Ashvini David (24) ushered us into the hallway of her home. There a colourful painting of trees silhouetted against the setting sun caught the eye. It was the handiwork of this talented young artist.
Under the guidance of Lalitha Ismail, Ashvini has worked hard at her painting. Commenting on her style she said, "My teacher Latiffa has been a great help. She gives us a free hand so we're able to develop our own style."
Along with other young artists Ashvini has exhibited her work several times and said that she was fortunate to have won a prize in 1986 at the Art Exhibition held at St. Bridget's.
"Painting requires a lot of patience and dedication. Some of the paintings take me at least a week to complete but I never get tired doing something that brings me such pleasure" she said.
This talented lady tends to favour abstracts, yet she says what she loves most is to get in touch with nature by painting beautiful landscapes. So, is this the message which she tries to convey? "Oh yes" she says "I like to stress on nature and bring out the fact that it's important to man".
To Ashvini who held her first Exhibition along with her brother in 1985, July 12 will dawn as a day of anticipation as she hosts her first solo exhibition at the Lionel Wendt. The exhibition continues till July 14. She will be celebrating 15 years of art.
Seventy pictures will be exhibited. "My aim is to bring pleasure to the people who come to see the exhibition and I hope that I achieve that through my paintings" she said.
Funny Money is the third in a series ( did somebody say trilogy ) of farce to be put on by the master of the genre, Mr. Mohommad Adamally. Adamally has chosen Ray CooreyÕs Funny Money, to follow Run for Your Wife and Don't Dress for Dinner, the two previous efforts. Run for Your Wife received runaway reviews, which gave Adamally a positive case of sequelitis.
In Funny Money, lucre is turned into funny business, and everybody seems to be either drunk or mixed up-accounting for some uproarious drama which can be placed between slapstick and situation comedy.
There is a lot to do with Barcelona, and a putative case of wife swapping (and this previewed doesn't want to give any of the plot away.) Sudeshna Ranmuthugala portrays a drunk, and its funny how a female drunk looks so much like a male one. But the young cast is having fun and whenever a cast has fun, it is generally true that the audience ends up having fun as well.
Funny Money will be up on the boards from Friday the 12th at the Lionel Wendt theatre. The Lionel Wendt is experiencing a major drought which only beats the drought at the catchment, and Funny Money will probably will be the monsoon to beat all monsoons. Those who have Run for Your Wife on their minds will probably be there, but for others, Funny Money probably offers a respite from the hurly-burly of Colombo's powerless corporate nights and days. Its funny, but when something has to do with money it will attract Colombo's crowds. With good supporting performances by Jehan Aloysisus, Dyan Candappa, Viran Corea etc.,, funny money will probably nevertheless give theatergoers their money's worth.
Return to the Plus contents page
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk