There is a view that the use of word ‘socialist’ has become redundant in the context of the liberalization of Indian economy after 1992. There is also a view that the word ‘socialist’ in the Preamble to our constitution requires to be defined. These views are put forward because the reforms under the New Economic Policy provided for the minimal role of the state and bring forth the concept of ‘free market’.
An increased role of market and private players in providing the goods and services to the people is advocated. The concept of ‘minimum government and maximum governance’ is being put forward. The government is expected to give way to the private players in supplying goods and services with assured ‘value for money’, wherever it is possible. The role of the government is only to regulate and ensure that services are promptly provided, create appropriate economic climate, for example, maintaining fair competition, preventing cartelization, etc. This is known as ‘rollback of state’ giving way to the market.
In the liberalized market the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) enjoy more autonomy and are expected to make profits like the private. The budgetary support to the PSUs is no more available. The PSUs are to compete in the market with the private players and their monopoly is done away with. Furthermore, the concept of ‘weakening of the welfare state’ given by Margaret Thatcher advocates doing away with the subsidies and reduce the government expenditure.
However, the above views are not acceptable in the context of Indian constitution because these views attribute a state-centric interpretation to the word ‘socialist’. Whereas the constitution views socialism as a value for building a social order based on justice. In that social order socialism is prescribed as value, a social moral.
The concept of socialism is centred on the objective of providing right to access and not state centrism. Therefore, the steps taken by the government in respect of LPG (Liberalization, Privatiza Globalization) have to be viewed from this standpoint. The LPG only enhances the role of the private sector and does not result in complete pulling out the state. The state has:
- Pulled out only from such areas where its presence is not necessary or where the private sector can perform better than the state.
- Pulled out in order to avoid exposing the public money to an unnecessary risk by way of partaking them with the non-strategic sectors.
- Liberalized to provide better qualities of services to the people.
- Liberalized to ensure the ‘value for their money’.
By this, the state has permitted the private sector in order to shoulder the responsibilities and the risks so that the welfare objectives are achieved. In any case, the state has not absolved itself of the responsibility to regulate the market. Hence, the meaning of socialism is nowhere compromised.
Furthermore, the concept of democratic socialism provides for a mixed economy which does not exclude the presence of private participants. In the context of liberalization, the scope of mixed economy is widened only with the view to promote the welfare, by way of providing better quality of services, value for money to the people and conserving the state’s resources—finance, human and time that could be meaningfully spent on such sectors as social and economic so as to promote the welfare goals. Hence, the term socialist is very much relevant, its meaning remains intact and not required to be defined.
Latest News
EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
General Studies