Thatcher's legacy: Empowerment or state's decimation

The other day I came across Alfredo Saad Filho at King's College in London. I first met the scholar of the Marxist Political Economy in 2008 when he was heading the Department of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). The Brazilian of Lebanese origin shaped much of my understanding on Neoliberalism. After spending two years with the United Nations in Geneva, he is back again in London.

During the course of his lectures on the demise of Keynesianism, Alfredo had observed that the global financial crisis was not the handiwork of only the bankers, who are blamed the most for their greed and financial imprudence, but also of the government policymakers. In fact, the sub-prime mortgage, considered to be the germ behind the financial epidemic, was the result of a concerted government policy in the US.

Alfredo introduced me to the writings of Allen Greenspan, who is one of the 25 people listed by the Time  as blameworthy for the financial crisis.

In his book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" , Greenspan writes: "The gains [from home ownership] were especially dramatic among Hispanics and Blacks, as increasing affluence as well as government encouragement of sub prime mortgage programmes enabled many members of minority groups to become first-time home buyers. This expansion ... gave more people a stake in the future of our country and boded well for the cohesion of the nation."

The motive behind the policymakers encouraging the banks to provide sub prime mortgage to the relatively less well off, knowing fully well that they were more likely than not to falter to repay the debt, was to ensure a sense of ownership in the system and a stake in the dominant discourse,i.e,  Neoliberalism. 

I doubt if the US policymakers had any noble intention about the well being of the Hispanics and the Black population when the banks were dishing out sub prime mortgages. On the contrary, giving home ownership, however flimsy it might be, to those who didn't even dream of having their own properties was a way of discrediting the nation state, which was the dominant development paradigm in the post-war period and it continued till the early 1970s.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher's decision to allow the council tenants to buy the properties they lived in was a way of , giving the less well off a sense of ownership in the system, encouraging them to live outside the purview of the welfare state and portraying that it was not only the state which was capable of providing home ownership.

One might argue that Thatcher's intention was to empower the people but as the events of the post-Thatcher years would prove it has resulted more in the decimation of the nation state. I haven't come across any empirical evidence to prove that those who bought their council properties moved up the property, social and economic ladders in substantial numbers. I wonder if buying the council properties have in any way changed the life world of those who have done so or made them more enterprising.

I would also argue that Thatcher's crackdown on the trade unions and  widespread privatisation were also guided more by the motive of liquidating the state and not so much to empower the people.

The Thatcher years might have changed Britain significantly. The days of rampant trade unionism are a thing of the past, the industrial heartland of middle England has undergone significant
de-industrialisation and is struggling with a high level of unemployment and the society has become more unequal, but it is hard to believe that the ordinary man feels more empowered now. The positive effects of societal changes and technological development have been overshadowed by insecurity and instability.

So as Margaret Thatcher goes to her grave, I will remember her more for the arrogant one-line snipers and much less as someone who has made significant positive changes to people's lives.

Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant. 
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com 

All comments are personal.

Vandalism at Presidency: Remembering Father Huart

The recent events at Kolkata's Presidency University reminds me of the grit and determination of our very own Father A Huart, the former Rector of St Xavier's College. 

Father Huart
(Courtesy The Telegraph)

I don't remember the exact year now - probably it was in 1987. Once during a students' strike in West Bengal, members from both the Student Federation of India or SFI and the Chhatra Parishad wanted to stop classes and impose the shutdown at our college. In fact, they had jointly put flags at the college gate on the Park Street side. 

However, Father Huart, then the Vice Principal, was not ready to relent. He argued with the student leaders that there was no political union in our college so closing it down for external reasons would amount to imposing a decision on the students to which they might not agree.

One of the student leaders, who was probably from the Moulana Azad College, even threatened Father Huart with violence and blood shed (rakto ganga boye jete pare).

Father Huart, as he was, in a very composed manner replied that he had witnessed the Naxalite violence at its peak in West Bengal and if he had to die the person replacing him would do the same thing.

Finding an unassuming Father Huart such a hard nut to crack, the all imposing student leaders left.

Father Huart then called all the students and narrated what he told the student leaders. He then asked us whether we wanted to join the strike. Getting a negative response from the students, he then announced that the following day the college would be closed after lunch break.

Later in 2009, when the college was celebrating its 150th anniversary, the Belgian father recalled the tough time they had to face at the height of political instability in the state. 

He told The Telegraph: "I remember the ’60s and ’70s when the whole city was in turmoil with the Naxalite movement but St. Xavier’s escaped from it entirely. There were some attempts in the ’60s to bring in a college union based on politics but it met with resistance from the students who thought it would divide them."

Father Huart was always very proud of the college and his students. When I was doing my Economics Honours he used to teach us Political Theory. Once he asked me to leave the class as I was busy doing things for our picnic to Nurpur the next day rather than paying attention to his lecture. He asked me not to return without seeing him. But when I met him after the class and apologised in Bengali, following an advice from a senior, he excused me. As I was talking to him, I could see a copy of the well known Bengali magazine 'Desh' on his table. He later confided his passion for Bengali. 

He was a true custodian of his students, now a rare breed in the world of education across Bengal. Following threats from the leaders of the warring students' unions, Father Huart could have easily sought help from the Park Street Police Station, which was literally across the road. Instead he chose to take things on his own stride and did what he felt was best for the college and its students. 


Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant. 
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com 

All comments are personal.

Margaret Thatcher's legacy

Hagiology is in our genes. Even the most impolite of persons is described as very well mannered in death. 

Many are describing Margaret Thatcher as the 'Iron Lady' who saved Britain from the brink of disaster by privatising, I would argue the society. Most of them haven't seen the Thatcher years, I haven't either. But I have at least witnessed some of the impact Thatcherism had on contemporary Britain. 

The place which saw the first industrial revolution is now bereft of any industry. The same applies with agriculture. If Thatcher had converted the country into a shop, being a grocer's daughter herself, her Labour protege Tony Blair and his Chancellor Gordon Brown transformed Britain into a land of city-centric speculation. 

Gambling often pays more than productive activities, but that is a matter of chance. Blair made hay when the sun shone and now the British people are paying the price.

Thatcher years were marked by large scale privatisation. This may seem sound business to an MBA or a business analyst, but a country is a tad different from business. The privatisation of British Telecom, British Airways or BP might seem good business but only the profit motive might make the stakeholders of these blue chip companies extremely reckless. Then they might only be guided by profit maximisation and dispose the companies off failing to do so. In that case the biggest looser would be the country and it's people. Yet David Cameron describes Thatcher as a lion-hearted patriot.

Public sector is not without inefficiency but resorting to privatisation as a way of ensuring efficiency only highlights the failings of the government. It is extremely risky to privatise certain things, as there is more to society and ethical sustainability than profiteering. Some call it commanding heights, others describe them as core infrastructure. Leaving them to the market is compromising with national interest and aspirations of the hardworking people.

These days people talk more in favour of privatisation not only because government is inefficient, which no one would deny, but also for the simple reason that privatisation dominates the popular intellectual discourse. This is the fall out of the Washington Consensus and its architects can thank Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan for that.

The legacy of Thatcher and Reagan would be the age when government is less important and a society that is far more insecure.

Friedrich August Hayek has finally taken his revenge over John Maynard Keynes.

Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant. 
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com 

All comments are personal.