Rusty Compasses in the Face of Poverty and Inequality

It is assumed that the advocates of maintaining the status quo, merely adjusting unwanted effects, should be the ones gaining with the present situation while, conversely, those who have been harmed by it should be supporting its transformation. This, however, is only partially true. What happens is that both spaces are not homogenous: within each one of them there coexist dissimilar interests, needs, perspectives, ideologies, beliefs, and emotions. Hence, in addition to navigating the present with mastery in order to face situations requiring immediate action, generating a strategic thinking that is capable of recognizing and building a better course is of critical importance.
Some think that the present situation may go on as it has been up to now, and that for poverty and inequality to be eradicated what we need is to grow and, regardless of the type of growth, just supplement it with effective “social” policies. It is, indeed, a way of perceiving reality and diagnosing two of its most serious problems. This view implies accepting that the course and the way of functioning are essentially correct, and unwanted effects may be overcome without reconsidering the direction and nature of national and global development.

Others, including us, believe that it is necessary to adjust the course and way of functioning in order to generate a vigorous and sustainable development and, in that process, transform a type of accumulation which produces significant concentration, increases inequality, reproduces poverty, endangers the environment, leads the population to irresponsible consumerism, and draws us apart from the quests of existential meaning. Addressing such huge challenges demands much more than special programs to correct undesired effects; it implies realigning macroeconomic policy towards sustainable development, promoting responsible mesoeconomic behaviour of production chain leading companies, and establishing an effective support system to the base of the productive apparatus to strengthen small producers. Opinion Sur has been developing this approach along numerous publications that can be checked out on its website: [www.opinionsur.org.ar->http://www.opinionsur.org.ar]

In principle, it is assumed that the advocates of maintaining the status quo, merely prone to adjust unwanted effects, should be the ones gaining with the present situation while, conversely, those who have been harmed by it should be supporting its transformation. This, however, is only partially true.

It does occur that many of those who benefit from the prevailing order take active roles to sustain it and ensure its reproduction so that they do not see their privileges threatened; but there are also people and organizations from privileged sectors who can see farther, or better defend their mid and long-term interests, and propound taking a different course, in view of the fact that the systemic course does not lead to sustainable development, and is fraught with instability, conflicts, as well as social and environmental insecurity.

Likewise, not all those who are harmed by the prevailing course and way of functioning actively work to transform it. Be it due to disinformation, ignorance or powerlessness, that are tied to the extreme precariousness and dispersion they suffer, or to the manipulation they are subject to, no few sectors hit hard by poverty and inequality in one way or another contribute to maintaining the economic dynamics hurting them. We should not overlook the fact that the system of values and rules guiding our actions has been established under strong influence of sectors who benefit from the systemic way of functioning and, due to their economic, social and political clout, have ready access to political leaders, State branches, administration of justice, the media, educational institutions, strategic think-tanks and other law, attitudes and opinion makers.

In other words, although it is possible to tell those who benefit from those who are harmed by the current state of affairs, that water divide ends up being not too evident for many sectors of the population. What happens is that both spaces (winners and losers) are not homogenous: within each one of them there coexist dissimilar interests, needs, perspectives, ideologies, beliefs, and emotions. In this complex, dynamic universe, the sectors organized in political, social, environmental, unionized, corporate, students’ movements and media, as well as independent individuals, put their influence at play through tugs-of-war, deal making, tricks, setting up coalitions (some of them ephemeral, some of them long-lasting). It is a process with many dimensions, where multiple relations, confrontations, forces, ideas and motivations converge, changing over time as circumstances evolve.

In this context, reflection and elucidation are frequently besieged; make-believe, confusion and disorientation weigh heavily. In the face of this, we do need to make a permanent effort to analyze the evolution of processes, figure out the meaning and impact of the measures taken and, very especially, generate strategic thinking. It becomes crucial to navigate the present with mastery in order to face situations requiring immediate action; yet, forging a promising mid-term that is capable of including us all will demand having the adequate thinking and instruments that allow us to recognize and build a better course. This failing and with rusty compasses, it will be difficult to move forward toward sustainable development trajectories and, much less, to align a good number of interests needed not only to promote but also to preserve that path.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *