“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants” – Albert Camus
Our politicians have always been boasting their actions towards maintaining our country as a “welfare state”. It’s not a term of their own coinage. It’s a common term perpetuated around the world.
However, the common man has yet to understand the true nature of a welfare state to better grasp that benefits showered upon them by the government in an attempt to showcase their “political feats” can in long term be to their detriment.
Generally three types of welfare state activities exist: “provision of minimum income, provision for the reduction of economic insecurity resulting from such ‘contingencies’ as sickness, old age and unemployment, and provision for all members of society of a range of social services”.
A welfare state usually aims at slaying what can be termed as the five ills of the society, namely, “want, disease, ignorance, squatter and idleness”. While it might be easy to tackle the first four, the eradication of the fifth evil is a Herculean task.
Idleness takes two forms. One enforced and the other voluntary. One is the result of unemployment made worse by recession, spending cutbacks, growing competition from abroad and a dozen other economic factors. The other is the predictable effect of a dependency culture that is grown steadily over the years. It brings about a sense of entitlement that the country owes us a living and fuels the misconception that without putting in an effort, we can acquire everything.
Our leaders fail to see that such assistance encourages people to avail of it longer than they otherwise would. People are not motivated to move up the social ladder. They have thus the tendency to dwell in their idleness as long as social assistance is being provided.
Social expenditures have become a too heavy burden for modern states. The growing social expenditures are at the end of the day hampering economic growth to a great extent. But the solution is right there staring at us.
Depriving benefits to those who can and have the possibility to work and who don’t want to, will trigger the instinct of them battling hard to earn a living instead of staying idle. True, it will be tough at the beginning. But then, there’s no choice for them. Why should hard-working tax-payers contribute in subsidizing idleness – especially when everybody else is feeling the pinch of such burden these days?
As citizens of the country everybody needs to be responsible in ensuring that what the government caters for is being equitably distributed among the neediest, rather than giving a blanket cover even in cases not warranted by circumstances.
Can we say the state is engaged in eliminating poverty when an economic system is boosted by greed and piloted by exploitation enriching a few at the expense of devastating poverty, unbearable misery and distressing economic disparities?
How can society bear the burden of exploitation in the hands of unscrupulous money-lenders; where banks discriminate in providing relief and succour to the poor and the needy, while favouring those having occult relationships? Worst, when these privileged ones end up often getting their loans written off in circumstances still obscure to the common man.
One extreme is earning half million rupees with countless added benefits, opportunities and privileges, covered by state immunities against prosecutions; and the other extreme is left on its own with the minimum wages of Rs 8, to 10,000.00 monthly. Does the former extreme dare to investigate upon the exact situation of those who may be sleeping hungry in “haunted habitation”, totally isolated of the realities of the world?
Much is being said these days about increasing retirement age at 70. The ordinary people have to toil hard all their life time, sometimes more than 40 years at the end of which they may be entitled to a meager pension if they happen to survive. In contrast our MLA’s just have to serve two mandates (which may not necessarily be 10 years, occasionally less) and they bag a big pension packet when they retire either out of non-election or not running for another term, voluntarily or involuntarily. And there’s still more to that. Some fortunate few who are already enjoying pension for their previous service as MLA’s or head of state, are also enjoying remuneration for their current status as parliamentarian or minister. Is this the welfare state we are talking about? A situation that discriminates the haves and the have-nots?
Should we then blame those individuals who face economic disparities and become delinquents in a system where the rich become richer and the poor poorer?
How can we fight criminalities, thefts, hold-ups, and other form of social diseases in such conditions? Is it fair and just to punish such individuals who have been totally deprived from their legitimate rights to seek honest living in a society where economic disparities have overwhelmed the whole system? If it is so, then we are all guilty of protecting the accumulation of fraudulent wealth perceived to be in the hands of a few bloodsuckers instead of bringing them to face law and justice.
In a just society, even a kid is made to realize that he is not a good citizen if he allows his neighbor to sleep hungry or if he does come to the help of his neighbor who is homeless.
It’s time for politicians to stop using “welfare state” as bait to the ballot. Our social welfare should be based on the economic health of the country. It should provide the basic needs to all its citizens without distinction. It should create opportunities to each and every one to seek his economic livelihood. If our economic order is healthy and the state can guarantee the basic requirements of the population, no one will be under the compulsion to steal.