by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
( July 29, 2015, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) The phrase In the long run we are all dead is attributed to the much celebrated economist John Maynard Keynes who is wrongly misunderstood as having been a short-termist who advocated enjoying the present and the immediate future without caring for the long term future interests of humankind. Simon Taylor, Director of the University of Cambridge Master of Finance (MFin) degree and a member of the finance and accounting faculty group at Cambridge Judge Business School, says: “Here is the context for Keynes’ quotation: “ The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again. Keynes wrote this in one of his earlier works, The Tract on Monetary Reform, in 1923. It should be clear that he is not arguing that we should recklessly enjoy the present and let the future go hang. He is exasperated with the view of mainstream economists that the economy is an equilibrium system which will eventually return to a point of balance, so long as the government doesn’t interfere and if we are only willing to wait”.
People in Bangladesh carry drinking water ~ Mohammad Rakibul Hasan/UNDP Picture
It is quite clear what Keynes meant. It was that we cannot be complacent in economics that things will run their cycle and automatically adjust themselves and that we should therefore be concerned about fixing what might be wrong without waiting for the long run where circumstances will fix things by themselves. This view, translated into politics resonates a certain sensibility. A statement made by President Obama to the African Union a few hours ago, that women should be treated with dignity and be given every opportunity to educate themselves and improve themselves, implicitly conveys just one example of this philosophy – that there should be governmental intervention to ensure human rights, liberties and equal opportunity, and make things better for everyone. The foremost and most ominous enemy of this progressive approach is traditionalism.
The fundamental premise behind the Keynesian thinking of appropriate governmental intervention is change for the better, and if change does not happen, make it happen. This is a universal principle, whether in the context of parliamentary elections or in ensuring world peace or in international attempts at inter-governmental unity at improving the world. A glaring example is the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations which were called “the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions-income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability”. There were eight Millennium Development Goals (Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV / AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development) where the United Nations worked for the past 15 years (with governments and civil society). Although not fully achieved in 2015 these goals have been achieved partially with impressive results. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reports that things are much better now than they were in 2000. There have been vast reductions of poverty and child mortality; increases in income; access to improved sources of water; and primary school enrollment.
The new Sustainable Development Goals, starting from 2015 are meant to attain fruition in 2030 where it is hoped that there will be complete eradication of poverty globally. The 17 Goals are: end poverty in all its forms everywhere; end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture; ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages; ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all; achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls; ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all; promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all; build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation; Reduce inequality within and among countries; make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements made by the UNFCCC forum); conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development; protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss; promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels; and strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development.
Ending poverty; hunger; inequality; corruption; and violence are a priority for any country and Sri Lanka is no exception. Reduction, or better still, eradication of unemployment (if that is at all possible) is key to development and ensuring the welfare of the people. As Simon Taylor has said: “unemployment causes enormous harm to individuals and families, reduces long term potential output as people lose their skill and motivation and can last for many years. The appalling rates of unemployment in southern Europe are doing great damage right now, as well as storing up serious political problems for the future (once again I have to cite the fact that the Nazis achieved power in Germany on the back of mass unemployment, not inflation). It is in this sense that economists should not let themselves off the hook by saying that these countries will somehow eventually return to full employment if we are just patient. This is both immoral and incorrect”.
As the United Nations Secretary General said in his Report:
The road to dignity by 2030: ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet which he released in December 2014: “The year 2015 offers a unique opportunity for global leaders and people to end poverty and to transform the world to better meet human needs and the necessities of economic transformation, while protecting our environment, ensuring peace and realizing human rights. We are at a historic crossroads, and the direction we take will determine whether we will succeed or fail in fulfilling our promises. With our globalized economy and sophisticated technology, we can decide to end the age-old ills of extreme poverty and hunger. Or we can continue to degrade our planet and allow intolerable inequalities to sow bitterness and despair. Our ambition is to achieve sustainable development for all.
Young people will be the torchbearers of the next sustainable development agenda through 2030. We must ensure that this transition, while protecting the planet, leaves no one behind. We have a shared responsibility to embark on a path to inclusive and shared prosperity in a peaceful and resilient world, where human rights and the rule of law are upheld. Transformation is our watchword. At this moment in time, we are called upon to lead and act with courage. We are called upon to embrace change. Change in our societies. Change in the management of our economies. Change in our relationship with our one and only planet”.
It is not unreasonable to expect that most of this philosophy should be the blueprint of a genuine political party seeking leadership of a country through a local parliamentary election.
In this battle the Muslim parliamentarians did not have any say to influence the President to dissolve the parliament or to prevent such an event although it was claimed that the President MS was elected because of the minority votes in the last presidential election and in spite of the fact that the sudden announcement to dissolve the parliament can have far reaching impact on the political, social, religious, and economic lives of the minorities. It may also mean that these Muslim parliamentarians are taken for granted !
July 29, 2015
Photo courtesy 
