Equality Denied To The Energy Poor

The global energy reality exposes an aspect of the energy crisis: equality denied. Billions in this planet is the embodiment of this denial, one of the manifestations of the energy crisis along class line.

“Around 2.64 billion people, 40% of the world's population,” writes Alejandro Litovsky, “lack modern fuels for cooking and heating. 1.6 billion have no access to electricity, three-quarters of them living in rural areas” ( OpenDemocracy , Sept.7, 2007). He continues: “As decision-makers in Europe and north America wonder how to reduce energy consumption, massive regions of the developing world remain literally in the dark. Populations in the energy-poverty trap – covering vast areas of south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa – are nowhere likely to influence the accountability of the energy policies of their governments.”

With the intensification of urbanization the problem is likely to increase. Current projections show that the majority of the people in the underdeveloped world will be living in urban and suburban areas by 2020. A number of the cities in the underdeveloped countries will emerge as the largest cities in the world in terms of population. The urban life already is overwhelmed by low-income population and with the problems pressing them down to dust. This low-income population has least money to access energy as they have to live within a precarious life, which is full with hunger, unemployment, disease, illiteracy. The places they live in don't support human existence. Lack of safe water and sanitation, insecurity, daily harassment by tools of rule and indignity are integral part of their life. In this life, there is no scope to access better energy source.

“Worldwide, hundreds of millions of low-income households,” a World Bank publication informs, lack access to modern energy (electricity and petroleum products), ”

[ B ] ut estimating the figure even within a few hundred million people is difficult. A common (though perhaps outdated) estimate is about 2 billion people, a third of the world's population. Households in many African countries consume little commercial energy compared with households in the countries of the former Soviet Union , for example, where the electricity infrastructure built in Soviet times still connects almost 100 percent of the population. Low-income households consume a relatively small amount of energy, and that energy is of low quality. Per capita energy consumption in South Asia is only 2.6 percent — and that in Sub-Saharan Africa only 1.3 percent — of per capita consumption in the United States . For these supplies, survey and anecdotal evidence suggests, South Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans pay among the world's highest unit costs — and get some of the world's worst-quality energy. Ugandans spend an estimated US $100 million a year — an incredible 1.5 percent of GDP — on dry cell batteries to power radios, flashlights, and other small items. The average Ugandan household spends an estimated US $72 a year on dry cell batteries, used in 94 percent of Ugandan households. The cost per unit of energy consumed works out to US $400 a kilowatt-hour. Ugandans may spend almost as much per year on kerosene for their lamps. Car batteries, which cost about US $120 a year to operate, produce better-quality power at about US $3 a kilowatt-hour. But poor households often spend a higher share of their income, as in Bulgaria , Jamaica , Kazakhstan , Nepal , Pakistan , Panama , and South Africa . More households use electricity than have in-house water taps or telephones in countries in Europe and Central Asia and in [some] other countries…. Poor countries consume on a per capita basis, only five percent of the modern energy consumed by rich countries. Four out of five people without access to electricity live in rural areas. They include particularly the rural women and children that depend totally on traditional fuels. Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia present the largest gaps in access to energy services: Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest electrification rate, with 77% of the population lacking access, or about 526 million people. In South Asia the equivalent figures are 59% and about 800 million people. (Rural Energy and Development: Improving Energy Supplies for Two Billion People , 1996 )

More than 95 percent of rural households in Angola , Benin , Cameroon , Chad , Congo ( Kinshasa ), Ethiopia , Ghana , Sudan , and Zambia among others still use fuel wood and charcoal for cooking. Many areas of China , India , and Bangladesh also rely heavily on fuel wood, wood waste, and charcoal for cooking. In China , about 55 percent of the rural population uses biomass for cooking, as does 87 percent of the rural population in India . There are more facts provided by the mainstream that tell the deprivation of the poor in the area of energy. The Energy and Poverty Reduction – Fact Sheet by the World Bank adds the following:

1.6 billion people lack access to network electricity.… 1.4 billion people will still lack electricity access in 2030.…2.4 billion people rely on traditional biomass … for cooking and heating. This will increase to 2.6 billion by 2030 without change in policies. Poor people in developing countries spend up to a quarter of their cash income on energy. As of 2004, the richest 20% of the world's population consume 58% of total energy, whereas the poorest 20% consume less than 4%. The … poorest people use only 0.2 tons of oil-equivalent energy per capita annually, while… those earning on average over US $20,000 a year — use nearly 25 times as much. 1.6 million women and children die prematurely from indoor air pollution caused by burning solid fuels in poorly ventilated spaces. 40 million new cases of chronic bronchitis are caused by exposure to soot and smoke every year. More than 80% of all deaths in developing countries attributable to air pollution-induced lung infections are among children under 5 (Energy Poverty Issues and G 8 Actions, Feb. 2, 2006).

There is also wide disparity, according to the World Energy Council, between the energy consumption levels of the rich and poor. In terms of electricity consumption, the richest 20 percent uses 75 percent of all electricity while the poorest 20 percent uses less than 3 percent.

This is also the reality of energy crisis in the present day world. The billions lacking access to energy services lead to the “famous” “vicious poverty trap”. It affects health of the poor, leads to lower productivity, to food insecurity. But the problem is ignored by the metropolis of the world system.

Unequal distribution of modern energy services and low level of income in poor countries are two of the major reasons that constitute the factor leading to poor access to modern energy services. Lack of or poor infrastructures in the poor countries, lack of resources to develop the required infrastructure, and biased institutional and legal framework also have their share in creating the problem for the poor. Absence of political commitment in favor of the poor is the foremost problem that limits the access to modern energy by the poor. The political commitment is biased, tilted to the rich. It follows the class line.

The poor households in the underdeveloped countries mainly use firewood, dung, tree leaves, crop residues, and in some cases, charcoal. The World Energy Outlook 2006 estimated that $8 billion (including capital and fuel) a year up to 2015 would be required for 2.5 billion people for their switching over to liquid petroleum gas for cooking.

The poor pay a high price for the energy they use: in terms of cash, labor, time, and health. They spend a much greater proportion of their income on energy than wealthy people. In Burkina Faso, a survey found, the poor devoted 5.6 percent and 1.3 percent of their income to firewood and kerosene respectively while in Guatemala and Nepal, firewood expenditure for households in the poorest quintile accounts for 10-15 percent of total household expenditure (R Heltberg, Household Energy and Energy Use in Developing Countries, A Multi-Country Study, 2003).

Studies on Bangladesh environment found that the availability of biomass has decreased. This has increased the hardship of the poor, especially of the women. They have to spend more time to collect biomass. The slum dwellers in Dhaka informed that they cooked once or twice a day instead of three times. That was the way they “innovated” to economize the spending on fuel. The price of firewood compelled them to follow the method though it was not good for food quality and health. The participants in the study suffered from health problems due to smoke from firewood. Villagers from different parts of the country also informed that the availability of biomass decreased. The changed reality taxed them in terms of labor, wage lost, and hardship. Consequently, this touches the limits of nutrition, household income, and productivity. The women had to bear most of the burden as they collected fuel for their families. Sometimes, an entire day was spent by the earning member of a family for collecting firewood (Farooque Chowdhury, “Urban Poor: Never-ending Quest for Energy”, “Scarce Fuel: Growing Scarcer”, and “Fuel, Firewood and Ghatail” in People's Report 20002-2003: Bangladesh Environment , UNDP, 2004).

These are the people who have been and are being pushed down to energy poverty that constitutes one of the elements of energy crisis. In ultimate analysis, these people have been kept confined within an inefficient system, which they have not organized. Rather, the system constructed by the dominating capital has been imposed on them. The system is so much inefficient that it cannot utilize the labor and creativity of these poor people. That means: the system lacks the capacity to tap energy.

The disparity is not only limited among the rich and the poor. Wide variations are there in the levels of energy consumption, according to the Human Development Report 2007/2008, between industrialized and the underdeveloped countries. Per capita energy consumption in North America is about 18 times that of Africa and four times the world average.

Energy poverty is defined as the “inability to cook with modern cooking fuels and the lack of a bare minimum of electric lighting to read or for other household and productive activities at sunset” (UNDP 2005). By this definition, the 2.5 billion people relying on biomass for cooking and the 1.6 billion people with no access to electricity could be classified as being energy poor.

Originating from the UK and Ireland 's grassroots level environmental health movements in early 1980s the concept of energy poverty or fuel poverty, has gained in importance. “With the energy crises of 1973/74 and 1979,” the World Energy Council said, “low-income households experienced difficulties with increased heating bills. The fuel poverty concept is an interaction between poorly insulated housing and inefficient in-housing energy systems, low-income households and high-energy service prices. At the beginning of the 21st Century, the British Government set up a strategy on fuel poverty aiming at eradicating this phenomenon by 2010 … for vulnerable households and by 2016 for all English households. According to the British standard definition that was adopted, a household is poor in fuel if it needs to spend more than 10% of its income on all fuel use to heat the home to an adequate standard and to meet its needs for other energy services (lighting, cooking, cleaning, etc.).” (World Energy Council, Europe's Vulnerability to Energy Crisis , 2008) The report added, “In England … the number of households poor in fuel decreased from 5,1 million in 1996 to 1,7 million on 2001 and to 1,2 million on 2004.” Table 1 provides a picture of fuel poverty in a number of European countries during the period 1994-'97. Portugal had the highest percentage of households defined at fuel poverty while Denmark had the lowest.

Table 1: Households Defined at Fuel Poverty, 1994-1997

Used by permission of the World Energy Council, London , www.worldenergy.org

In the US , the number of households in fuel poverty was 15.9 million (“Fuel Poverty in the USA ”, Energy Action , March 2006).

There is difference between the fuel poor in an advanced capitalist country and fuel poor in a poor country. The level of hardship between them also differs. But that does not nullify the reality of inequality in distribution. With the financial and food crises the suffering has increased. For the homeless and the unemployed in the US , the suffering is more. A number of news reports were dispatched by news agencies that the unemployed in the US were finding it hard to pay energy bills. In extreme weather in parts of the US , like all places in the world, the suffering increases.

While the energy poor is one aspect of the crisis there is over-consumption that has contributed to the crisis.

The type and volume of energy used by households differ from country to country. Income levels, natural resources, climate and available energy infrastructure determine these.

Typical households in the OECD countries consume more energy than those in the non-OECD countries. The OECD households with higher income can afford larger homes and purchase more energy-using equipment. In the US , GDP per capita in 2006 was about $43,000 (in real 2005 dollars per person), and residential energy use per capita was estimated at 36.0 million Btu. On the other hand, China 's per-capita income in 2006, at $4,550, was only about one-tenth the US level, and residential energy use per capita was 4.0 million Btu. Poorer households in Asia , Africa and Latin America earn less, and consume less energy.

Table 2 from a World Bank publication (from the section by Alan Townsend, “Energy access, energy demand, and the information deficit”) shows that disparity between the rich and the poor in electricity use is great. Disparity in this area is nil in Albania , Bulgaria , Kazakhstan , Kyrgyz Republic , and Ukraine while it is great in other countries including Ghana , South Africa , Nicaragua , Panama , Nepal , and Vietnam .

Table 2: Disparity Between the Rich and the Poor in Electricity Use

Source: the World Bank publication, LSMS survey in 15 developing countries

The US consumes most energy: 8.0 toe/person/year, followed by India and China with an average energy consumption of 7.3 toe per person per year each. On per capita basis, however, Canada consumes the most energy in the world. Its per capita energy consumption is 6.4 times the world average while that of the US is 5.1 times and Western Europe 's is 2.3 times the world's average (P O Pineau, Electricity Subsidies in Low Cost Jurisdiction, The Case of British Columbia ( Columbia ) , 2006). Italy consumes the least energy among the industrialized countries (3.1 toe per person per year). Africa 's average energy consumption only 0.14/person/year, a ratio of 1:57 , compared to the US . Average energy consumption in Bangladesh is only 0.08 toe per person per year, which is a ratio of 1: 100 when compared to the US that uses about fifteen times more energy per person than does a typical underdeveloped country. While the US share of the world's population is only 4.6 percent, it accounts for 24 percent of the world's energy consumption and over 30 percent of GDP. But the least developed countries with 10 percent of the world's population account for about 1 percent of energy consumption and a mere 1 percent of the world's GDP (Huq, et al. 2003). The energy situation Africa faces is a mixture of contradictory reality: while the continent desperately needs energy for economic growth and poverty reduction, it is a net exporter of commercial energy. Africa is home to about 7 percent of the world commercial energy, but it accounts for only 3 percent of global commercial energy consumption.

Energy use in the residential sector in 2006, according to the IEO2009 (International Energy Outlook, 2009) , accounted for about 15 percent of world delivered energy consumption. Larger homes, the Outlook said, need more energy as these homes tend to use more energy-consuming appliances. On the contrary, smaller homes usually need less energy as the smaller homes have less space to be heated or cooled, produce less heat transfer with the outdoor environment, and the appliances used in these homes are smaller. For example, residential energy consumption is lower in China than in the US . The average residence in China currently has an estimated 300 square feet of living space or less per person while the average residence in the US has an estimated 680 square feet of living space per person. The commercial or the services and institutional sector include businesses, institutions, and organizations providing services (schools, hospitals, water and sewer services, theaters, museums, art galleries, sports facilities, stores, hotels, restaurants, correctional institutions, office buildings, banks), and traffic lights. Economic activities and disposable income going to higher levels lead to increased demand for energy as demands for office space, space for business, hotels, restaurants, and facilities for cultural and leisure activities increase. Energy use per capita in the commercial sector in the non-OECD countries was much lower, 1.3 million Btu in 2006, than in the OECD countries, 16.3 million Btu.  The US is the largest consumer of commercially delivered energy in the OECD and remains in that position throughout the projection, accounting for about 44 percent of the OECD total in 2030.

The deeper, the keener observation on the issue, the more inequality gets exposed. The inequality in energy distribution comes from the unequal ownership of the energy resources, and is part of the unequal world system.

The inequality aspect should have the same, if not more, importance as other burning aspects of the energy crisis. Rectifying the inequality is one of the ways to face the crisis. Participation of people strengthens steps to face the crisis. But, shall there have any rational and moral standing if people are asked to contribute to/sacrifice for/play role into facing the crisis if they have no or little or unequal access to the energy resources? The crisis is not their creation. So, one of the first steps to face the energy crisis should be replacing the unequal energy distribution system with an equal and equitable energy distribution system. The other major step should be to inform people about the crisis and inequality so that people get aware. Awareness facilitates people getting organized and taking creative initiatives, and a collective force thus gets mobilized to face the crisis.

[ This section, modified and elaborated for clarity and completeness, is preceded by two parts of the chapter, “ Energy Inequality and Energy Poor” in The Age of Crisis (2009) by Farooque Chowdhury, a Dhaka-based freelancer. For easy identification, the section can be considered as part 3 of the chapter. ]

Energy Inequality And Energy Poor, Ignored Aspects Of Energy Crisis

The crisis in energy has cropped up on the soil of class interest as energy consumption moves along class line. In the present day world, the more a class possesses the more energy it consumes, and as a consequence, wars the class wages for accumulation and for maintaining its high-energy consuming life style aggravate the energy situation pushing it to the level of crisis.

High-carbon consuming life style based on private property at majestic level is threatening the poor, whose life is limited within the narrow neighborhood of low-carbon consumption. Capital is trying to impose its burden of energy-squandering sin on the masses of the poor, who are not even aware of capital’s business-of-future as capital keeps them in the dark of ignorance. The business-of-future is going on with the complex carbon trading, and the tapping of solar energy and “transporting” it across continent and sea. A section of capital is concentrating in this area of energy with all the possibilities of depriving the poor.

Energy crisis is usually viewed as a contradiction, gradually turning difficult to resolve, between the dwindling supply of oil and its increasing demand. Most of the discussions concentrate into this precinct, and thus overlook other aspects of the crisis. Even, the supply-demand aspect is viewed only in the perspective of advanced capitalist countries. Consequently, the entire discussion fails to look into other basics related to the crisis.

The discrepancy in the distribution of energy between the centre and the periphery, and between the people at the bottom and the absolute minority group at the top is not usually raised in the discourse on the energy crisis. But, referring the World Development Report 1986 the World Commission on Environment and Development (popularly referred as the Brundtland Commission) said: The growth of energy demand in response to industrialization, urbanization, and societal affluence has led to an extremely uneven global distribution of primary energy consumption (Our Common Future).

With intensified class war being waged by capital, aggravating economic situation, increasing inequality, lessening of access to the basics of life, deteriorating ecological reality, especially the calamities getting created by climate change, the food crisis, lack of democracy for the people including little scope for peoples’ participation in political life in most countries, especially in the Third and Fourth Worlds, lack of accountability in these societies, safeguarding the interests of the capitals involved in these countries, patronization of comprador and/or plundering ruling segments in these lands, and dominance of accumulating, at times, plundering and/or speculating interests have worsened the crisis. These have created energy crisis encompassing the life of billions at the bottom.

Little rays of light have reached the life of the people in many countries in the periphery though lots of money were and are being spent in the energy sector. But, the people do not know the plan, the design, the fund allocated, the allocation procedure, the contractor selected, the selection procedure, etc. All these are known only to the dominating segment, the bureaucrats, and the local collaborators of the capital from the center of the globalized system. These vested interests decide all related issues, reap the fruits, and have luxurious life. The crisis breeds profit. The people have to pay, in all way, through hardship, increased labor, repayment of external debt, loss of crop yield or low yield, loss of wage and working day or through longer working hour, higher prices of essentials, etc., although they have no or little access to the facilities. In countries the crisis turns out a funnel for squandering of public money on the one hand, and putting burden on and increasing suffering of the people on the other.

The energy crisis in the centre of the world system and in the periphery is not the same. The factors are different. These manifest in different ways and behave differently. The concepts of priority, risk, vulnerability, etc. also differ in these two parts of this divided world. In the centre even, the energy issue is dealt by the dominating interest in its way, not by the people. And, its interest lies in the quicker and higher, in relative term, profit. Most of the discussions on energy crisis miss this aspect also.

The world view of the dominating classes in the present world system is manifested in its concept of “free” market that includes free trade, free flow of capital, market mechanism, monopoly, etc. and this is one of the conveyors that carry the seed of crisis in the energy sector. This is the practice/approach/mechanism of the world capital even after The Great Financial Crisis.

One of the ways for overcoming the energy challenge faced by the world requires technologies superior to those available today. Cost-competitiveness of renewable energy technologies is also needed to face today’s energy crisis.

But, capital will not invest in any technology if the rate of profit is lower in the technology. The same is with investment in research and development. Capital will pump out the last stock if return is immediate and higher by drying out the stock. Capital will get engaged in speculation if it finds higher gains there than investing in any future energy source. Capital will not move an inch until peak oil or destruction of forest or some other issue appears as a threat to its profit, and until renewable energy, etc. appear as a promising market. It will even find out ways to reap profit from the growing problem of global warming. Capital will not provide energy to the poor unless it is needed for regeneration of capital and unless the poor appear a lucrative market than the speculation in bubble market. This basic nature of functioning of capital is related to energy crisis.

Energy merchants are now getting interested in the 4 billion low-income people in the base of the world economic pyramid as they form a market. Their “willingness to pay” as consumers is actually a yardstick for measuring the low-income people’s dominated position/strength/weakness/tolerance/intolerance to get appropriated, and to measure their aggregate purchasing power, which is capital’s power to widen the surplus labor time of the people, and an incentive to capital to let the low-income people have access to energy.

The World Resources Institute estimated that the total "base of the pyramid" household energy market in Africa, Asia, eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean to be $433 billion (The Next 4 Billion).

Already, the private sector, the “angel” of prosperity, has stepped in the crisis-ridden energy sector. Its “loneliness” is being overcome by the warm company of “public” sector, a patronizing hand of state at the cost of public money. An attractive name has also been innovated by the creative souls: public-private partnership, a flag to be kept unfurled till the private owners give up “shyness”, limit to their capacity, to grab the public share. “[P]rivate sector involvement in energy has been increasing. Between 1990 and 1999 seventy-six developing countries introduced private participation in their electricity and gas sectors by awarding more than 700 projects and investitures of shareholdings in electricity and gas enterprises. These transactions involved private investments totaling almost US$187 billion. While middle-income developing countries have led this revolution, low-income countries also have been active participants” (Penelope J. Brook and John Besant-Jones, “Reaching the poor in the age of energy reform”). The merchants of this market are innovating models targeted at the billions at the bottom. Prospects and promises for profit will determine the pace of capital to this market. But the “promise and prospect” of the market is a limitation of capital at the same time.

These aspects can’t and should not be ignored while looking at the issues related to energy crisis. These are, indeed, views based on class. But, the issue of energy crisis will bog down into confusion if it’s not viewed from class perspective. Interests of the dispossessed, of billions of working women and men, can’t be overlooked and ignored while discussing the energy crisis as the billions of toiling masses is vital, brain and heart, for civilization, is significant for the existence of our planet, as this billions make progress possible, as with creativity and labor power this billions create resources for making further achievements humanity requires and aspires. Civilization neither can be moved forward nor can be taken to further heights by keeping this billions energy-starved. Capital, starving and striving only for profit, nourishes the energy inequality as it stands opposed to the interests of the billions of energy poor. But, a system making energy inequality its integral part can’t be an efficient system for sustaining life on the Earth. This perspective shouldn’t be ignored while looking at the issue of energy crisis.

[This is the introductory part of the chapter, “Energy Inequality and Energy Poor”, in The Age of Crisis (2009) by Farooque Chowdhury, a Dhaka-based freelancer. This has slightly been modified for clarity and completeness. For identification, the part can be considered as part 1 of the chapter.]

Cooperatives In Bangladesh: Is The French Economist Rene Dumont Still Relevant?

It was 1973.

Months back, the Glorious War of Liberation in Bangladesh has compelled the occupying Pakistan army surrender. With three million martyrs, hearts were heavy with grief in the country. Signs of a war were everywhere, a ravaged, burnt to ashes land. But the dream for a Sonar Bangla, a prosperous Bangladesh, was bright in the hearts of the undaunted Bangladesh people.

Rene Dumont, a French economist, was invited by Swadesh Bose, the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies [then, it was BIDE] director at that time, “to give a quick ‘coup d’ ceil’ of foreign observer inside some problems of rural development of Bangladesh ‘in a socialist framework’”. The framework – socialist – was a fundamental question, as Rene wrote in the “Introduction” of the report: “In such a framework, the problem is also – mainly – a political one.” It was clear that Rene had not missed the fundamental question.

Rene, whose books including L’Afrique Noir Est Mal Petite, 1962 (False Start in Africa), Terres Vivantes, 1961 (Lands Alive), Nous Allons a la Famine, 1966 (The Hungry Future) raised important issues and some of which were bestsellers and much discussed, spent two weeks at village level in Bangladesh.

Professor Rene, at that time, director of research at Institut National Agronomique, Paris-Grignon, produced two tentative reports: A Self-reliant Rural Development Policy for the Poor Peasantry of Sonar Bangladesh (May 1, 1973) and Problems and Prospects for Rural Development in Bangladesh (November 30, 1973). In the first report he tried to answer questions Swadesh Bose raised. While findings answers to the questions Rene kept his eyes, as he wrote, on the issues of “problem of self-reliant, less dependent type of rural development” and “to benefit the landless and poor farmers Bangladesh need to reduce inequalities, not only in income, but also in status, privileges, prestige and education, to make an overall change in attitudes of rich-educated people, belonging to the urban privileged minority”.

Rene was aware of his limitation that made him write: “A foreign observer, in such a field, could give only his personal opinion, which are no advices.” Opinions Rene expressed in the reports made him a controversial person.

This year has been designated by the UN as the International Year of Cooperatives, and October is the month of cooperative. This provides an opportunity to look back at Rene’s opinions on cooperative in Bangladesh.

It should not be missed that his opinion was in the context of a certain socio-political situation. The assumption was state would initiate and take a lead role, and the poor would be brought forward. The idea was summarily expressed as Rene, in his 1st report, quoted Daniel Thorner: “If the cooperative movement wants really to obtain some results, two things should first [all emphasis in Rene] to be realized: 1) The power of the powerful people (mattabar [traditional village leader], well-to-do, influential rich people), the village potentates must be broken. 2) The government must become one tool, one instrument of ordinary people and must be considered as such by ordinary people, ordinary small peasant.” Then, Rene wrote: “I agree totally with Daniel Thorner.” The basic position of Rene bears no doubt. But the reality is different.

His position turns brighter as he wrote:

All the cooperatives “could not be successful on the conventional bureaucratic lines, […] they need more people participation for the main orientation, much more people control. And, this control, to be effective, needs a political support, even at the village level. And a new type of peasants’ organization, some kind of fight.”

He outlined proportion of representation in the proposed peasants’ organization at village level “to deal with all the land, water, tenants, borga [share cropping], and money lending problems at the village level. His proposed proportion of representation had majority of the landless, share cropper, small farmer, craftsmen, medium farmer. The approach keeps no confusion regarding the representation of the majority social classes.

He even wrote: “Here appears the absolute necessity of some kind of political and administrative support in favour of the poor and silent majority.” Rene proposed a section of the dominant political party in the hands of the poor, thana [the lowest administrative tier] level officers to be on the poor people’s side.”

Rene left no ambiguity. Issues of class difference, class power and class power equation were not missed by him. Political aspect of the reality the poor face was not also missed by the French economist.

But, he was expressing his expectation, which was based on expectation that others expressed although none of the expectations were based on the political reality, a major component of which was the class composition of the political power. This limitation made many of his opinions detached from class reality, a reality different from his assumption and expectation, a reality not non-antagonistic to the poor.

However, Rene was one of the first few on the cooperative question, who explicitly mentioned the dominant role the poor should assume and the political aspect if interest of the poor is to ensure.

It will be an absurd claim to say nothing has changed since Rene expressed his opinion. Significant changes are there in rural Bangladesh.

There are claims of achievement related to the lives of the poor. But has the of class power equation changed fundamentally? Doesn’t this get reflected in everyday life, in economy, society and politics? Don’t health, education, leisure, commodities being marketed, luxury being enjoyed, spending spree being advertised, crimes being committed exhibit the proportion of power social classes/segments hold in the society?

Media unerringly mirror the upper, middle and lower parts of the society. Power and influence each of the parts holds and practices also get reflected in the media.

The reality is so cruel that it arbitrarily brushes off claims of change made by acclaimed programs as it fails to deny the reality of class power equation. Achievements related to the poor, if real, would have changed position of the poor in the class power equation. The reality of the overburdened poor is so powerful that it permits none to forget the issues of the downtrodden, and compels all to pronounce: “fight out poverty”, “stand by the poor”, “this is for the poor and that is for the poor”, “we’re all for the poor”. Hands holding big, relative to Bangladesh reality, capital, persons standing under the shadow of that big capital, persons dear to international capital and interests, are much concerned with the poor, the weak, although the weak are the numerous, the majority. The feature films are laced with dialogues and symbols that don’t fail to show sufferings and humiliation the poor are pressed into and conspiracies hatched against them, and the feature films don’t fail to reflect the rage the poor hold in their brains. It’s a show of reality. It’s also a nice indicator.

Doesn’t this tell the reality of power equation? Do the poor, the social classes forming majority, need helping hands, lips, services, initiatives, ideas, concepts and concerns of a handful of minority social class? It’s needed. It’s needed for credibility; it’s needed for acceptability; it’s needed for legitimacy of the minority social classes. An absence of these makes many “things” unsafe in the status quo.

But, this reality, majority social classes need benevolence of a minority social class, is the unmistaken evidence of the power equation between the social forces. The condition of the poor, not only their living and working conditions, level of their voice, access and participation also, is a stark evidence of the unequal power equation between the social classes.

M Mahbubur Rahman, retired lieutenant general and former chief of army staff wrote: “The rich here are filthy rich and they are getting richer and the poor are mercilessly poor and becoming poorer. The gap is widening dangerously. The rich amass wealth by illegal means, by corruption, graft, tax evasion, drug trading, human smuggling, women and children trafficking and what not. It is said in Bangladesh all big wealth are stories of big crimes. You check up their cupboards and you will find human skeletons there. (“National budget and some ethical issues”, New Age, May 17, 2012) Similar observation – the rich-poor gap – has been expressed in many other parts of the mainstream, in its literature, some of which are by former senior civil servants of the republic. They are all learned, responsible and aware personalities. Neither Mr. Rahman nor the other parts in the mainstream represent left wing in politics and society. But the reality of the poor is so crude that it turns undeniable.

The rich-poor gap, widening, and seems ever widening, can’t escape equation in power of the social classes in the rural and urban areas. Logic of existing reality and power of private property ask not to deny the reality of unequal equation in power of the social classes. The present amount and quantity of private property was unimaginable in 1973, the time Rene visited Bangladesh. That reality of 1973 made him express opinion favoring the poor.

With this gap, the issue of the poor can’t miss an analyzing mind. Cooperatives also can’t escape the reality; can’t escape the issue of the poor. In absence of institutional initiatives to organize the poor, the poor and their allies can initiate cooperatives of the poor, of the downtrodden.

As part of the process, failures and debacles will accompany the initiatives to organize cooperatives of the poor. But, the poor organized in cooperatives shall have a ground to learn and practice financial planning, management and leadership, and other vital issues for their survival, which in turn will provide them a space, a space to stand on, a space necessary. The lessons learned will help them in their struggle that they wage in their everyday life with opposing class. Parts of Rene’s opinion will appear relevant while creating the space.

Chávez Wins, Chávez es el pueblo , Chávez Is The People

Frustrating status quo-aspiration and falsifying most of the mainstream expectation coated with predictions, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has won a fourth term in office. It's a victory of the under-classes. His new six-year term will begin next year, on the 10 th of January, and the common people expect: the Bolivarian revolution, as Chávez identifies, will continue.

“The revolution has triumphed”, Chávez told the jubilant citizens from the people's balcony , a balcony of the Miraflores presidential palace in the capital city Caracas . “ Venezuela will continue its march toward the democratic socialism of the 21st century. Viva Venezuela ! Viva the fatherland! The battle was perfect and the victory was perfect”, Chávez said.

From Argentina , President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner tweeted: “Your victory is our victory! And the victory of South America and the Caribbean !”

With a turnout of about 81% voters Chávez had won more than 54% of the votes while his opponent Henrique Capriles was able to bag about 45%. A subdued Capriles, leader of a coalition of about 30 parties opposing Chávez and standing for the interests of the rich, admitted defeat. Capriles and his cohorts are also close to the empire and opposed to Cuba .

The information in the four paragraphs above provide, in brief, the perspective of the election victory in Venezuela, an old republic striving for a new society based on equity and equality, dignity and fraternity, and standing opposed to the strongest empire in human history – the US. The struggle is within the country and in the external arena. The perspective leaves no confusion concerning the tone of politics and its debates.

Wide expectation in the mainstream was that Capriles, the Justice First candidate, would kick out Chávez as the country is being oppressed by an overvalued currency, slow moving industry, crumbling infrastructure, alarming murder rate, corruption and inefficiency.

Oil accounts for more than 90% of the country's foreign currency inflows, but the economy is still to be diversified. Inflation in the fifth largest economy in Latin America is 20% a year. “Soaring inflation and government spending – coupled with currency and capital controls – have created a widening fiscal deficit”, informed Consensus Economics, a survey organization. “The authorities are increasingly reliant on external debt to finance this.”

The China Development Bank, Bloomberg news agency informs, has lent Venezuela $42.5bn over the past five years.

Arturo Franco of the Center for International Development at Harvard University cites Venezuela as “the worst performer in GDP per capita growth.”

And, there are similar other statistics that can be easily cited as evidence of underperformance of the state Chávez leads.

During election campaigns, Capriles, who had a privileged upbringing, opposed nationalization. His argument: Nationalization discourages investment. His other arguments against Chávez included increasing autocracy, harassment of the private sector, government's involvement in the economy, which is detrimental to private sector, spiraling crime and power cuts. Capriles also referred to scandals that surface occasionally.

The line of criticism and the argument for opposition to Chávez is clear: Neoliberalism that puts everything to the “pity”, “benevolence”, cruelty and greed of capital that seeks profit only. To the poor Venezuelans, Capriles is an agent of oligarchy and the US .

A closer look into the performance by Chávez makes the demarcation line, along opposing class interests, clear: Poverty has decreased, health indicators have improved, thousands have got jobs in the expanding state sector. A house-building program has sheltered thousands of families in new homes. Billions of dollars have been channeled into misiones , social programs for the poor: healthcare, education, low-price shops, transport, cooperatives. Now, with a gradually decreasing income inequality all the citizens have a more equal slice of the cake. Venezuela is having the fairest income distribution in the region.

Chávez, who casts himself as the unlikely friend of the wealthy, who always claims somos la mayoría , we are the majority, has nationalized strategic industries and expropriated millions of hectares of land that the rich kept idle with the only purpose of speculation with land. The constitution framed under his leadership addresses social exclusion, and facilitates participation, transparency and accountability.

Chávez, who declared himself a socialist and whose campaign slogan was Chávez es el pueblo , Chávez is the people, is close to the poor, and is alienated from the elites. His opponents called him a monkey. Rich Venezuelans are angry with Chávez.

Prior to the emergence of Chávez, two political parties were peacefully altering state power. Poverty and corruption was wide and deep. A plunderocracy was reigning. Opposing the corrupt system and the elites' squandering of the oil wealth Chávez promised pro-poor social policies. He now plans to build three million homes by 2018 for the low-income people.

Capriles dared not antagonize the poor. He had to say, during campaign, he would not automatically return expropriated assets to private owners. He praised a number of programs initiated by Chávez. He had to commit he would, if elected, push building health clinics and schools for the poor.

The stage is set: the poor are aspiring for a better life for them while despising the rich for their predatory and squandering lifestyle. In a country divided between the rich and the poor with respective politics Chávez's voice against the wealthy is well-known: “predatory oligarchs”, the rotten elites, “squealing pigs”, “vampires”, who looted the oil wealth, corrupt servants of international capital, living in “luxury chalets where they perform orgies, drinking whisky”.

His opponents propagate a contradictory demand. They oppose his programs while they say he could and should have done more.

With petrodiplomacy, PetroCaribe program, standing close to Cuba , organizing ALBA with soft loans to neighbors, Chávez takes a stand for solidarity, mutual cooperation and fraternity among countries. This position can't endear him to a section in the world arena, the sections that practices Shock Therapy .

It's not an easy task to steer an old state machine on a new socio-economic-political path. All parts of the machine are old. Efforts for a gradual transformation are being made. Reality imposes a lot of limitations. There are limitations within the social forces upholding the dream for change. Chávez is operating within this limitation.

It would be a utopia to expect a corruption-free Venezuela overnight. A comparison will tell the truth: billions of dollars are “traceless”, unaccounted in two war fields. Is the amount of Venezuelan corruption to that level? Corruption in other countries that are integral part of the world system, Ben Ali's Tunisia or Mubarak's Egypt or some other similar country needs no mention. Is speculators' corruption, of rating agencies and banks, being exposed through the Great Financial Crisis comparable? Should not one compare “efficiency” of banks and real estate developers that are getting exposed at the center of the world system and in countries near to the center with the Venezuelan inefficiency? A comparison between Venezuelan power cut and power cuts in countries integrated with the world system will provide a hard truth. Should not one compare the number of schools being closed and teachers being thrown out of jobs in an advanced capitalist country and the number of schools being established and students being enrolled in Venezuela ? Should not the number of homeless families and the number of families being evicted from homes in advanced capitalist countries and the number of poor families getting home in Venezuela be compared?

Despite the facts mainstream don't refrain from its task: vilify people's efforts to build up a dignified, decent life. This reality compels one to say Chávez es el pueblo , Chávez is the people as people turn tired of inequality, deception, corruption, wasteful luxury, and as Chávez inspires the poor.

Shoes That Tell A Despot’s Days

“Termites, storms and neglect have damaged part of former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos’ legendary collection of shoes and other possessions left behind after she and her dictator husband were driven into U.S. exile by a 1986 popular revolt”, said the intro of “Neglect ruins Marcos prized shoes”, an AP exclusive by Jim Gomez from Manila.

The report, wired a few days ago, informed: “Hundreds of pieces of late strongman Ferdinand Marcos’ clothing, […] have also begun to gather mold and fray after being stored for years […] at the presidential palace and later at Manila’s National Museum.”

After two decades of brute rule, lies, mockery and forgery Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos had to flee to Hawaii at the climax of a 1986-popular upheaval. A helicopter from a naval fleet of US, an old, trusted friend of the despot, took the defeated and devastated couple from the presidential Palace. The US had no other alternative other than whisking away the despot they backed wholeheartedly over a long period of rule.

In a changed political reality, with active US role, the army led by Fidel Ramos stood by the “people power” upsurge. The shoes, the shirts of the fallen dictator were left back. The stultifying power had no energy and time to pick those up. Absent were the faithful and obedient persons, cronies and courtiers, to provide that service. At that tragic-comical moment of the crumbling rule, there was no crony around. A number of them turned turncoats.

The couple and their cronies stole a lot, amounting to billions of dollars. So far, $2.24 billion worth of cash, bank accounts and prime real estate have been recovered from the Marcos and co.

Imelda, with her children returned home years later. But the glee was gone. Absent was the dictator’s ghastly glory.

Imelda had to leave behind at least 1,220 pairs of shoes including famous European and American brands like Pierre Cardin, Gucci, Christian Dior. She had a battery-operated pair that blinked when she danced. Was that a dance-macabre?

She donated a pair of shoes to a US charity, and in auction that fetched $10,000. An act of benevolence after appropriating a staggering amount!

More than 150 cartons of clothes including about 100 of Ferdinand’s white barong shirts emblazoned with the presidential seal on its pocket, relics of greed, were transferred to the National Museum two years ago after termites, humidity and mold threatened those, said the AP report.

Those, captive of rapacity, lay abandoned there in a padlocked hall with leaked roof. The designer shoes, the shirts, Imelda’s leather bags, the gowns were wet, not with tears, but with rain water that dripped through the leaked roof. Termites, as the report informs, had damaged the heel and sole of a Pierre Cardin shoe. A sleeve of Ferdinand’s one presidential shirt was nearly torn off.

Her empress-ive shoe collection, a symbol of nimiety, captivated ordinary minds left to deprivation. Millions of them have not heard, even for once in entire life time, the brand names.

The people power revolt was not without after-shocks and consequences. One of those was making the despot couple’s crude life style public. Imelda’s shoes were displayed. That was a symbol of indecent life that despots and pirates aspire for and worship.

Imelda once made historic claims: Most of her foreign-branded shoes were faux and many of the shoes were gifts from Filipino shoe industry owners. Officials in Marikina city, the Philippines shoemaking capital, borrowed 800 pairs of her shoes in 2001 for a shoe museum she inaugurated. Tourists now visit the museum. Unapologetic Imelda said her shoes, “beautiful shoes” as she defined, turned her best defense, the report said.

Do the despots and the rich use all the resources they accumulate? Do they have that energy and time to enjoy all they appropriate? Don’t they get tired?

How much resource and energy do the despots and the rich need to safeguard the resources they appropriate? Who provide that resource and energy? Who extend the backing? Are those also from acts of appropriation? Is it that they safeguard all the appropriated resource with all the appropriated resource? Is it a totally unknown arithmetic?

Despots, the rich, the powerful, the appropriators always appall, astound and amuse people. It’s two ways of life; it’s two ways of looking at life and comfort: One of the people, and another of the rich. Two different world views differentiate them, put them in two camps. Two poles, opposite and antagonistic, emerge. These facts, disliked by a section, have been told and analyzed by many.

Despots don’t crop up from a void or don’t usurp all power overnight. Ruling elites create despots as their savior, to ensure their democracy, a dictatorial power over people. An individual dictator carries out tasks of a class dictatorship.

But mainstream finds it safe not to identify the class dictatorship. It’s not that mainstream don’t know and understand class dictatorship. The stream understands it in a much better way than the stream opposing it. The Mainstream shrouds class dictatorship with confusion to make the rule safe. The individual dictator is identified, and removed, the moment it feels that unseating the despot is a safer approach to ensure dictatorship of the ruling elites.

In societies, at times, elites find no alternative political process to deal the distribution work other that resorting to dictatorial process as existing political process fails to preside over their competition for grabbing, encroaching, plundering resources in respective societies. At times, elites’ existing process turns ineffective to coerce, silence and control (CSC) masses of people. Appropriated properties feel threatened if people aren’t CSCed. Elites’ only alternative appears resorting to dictatorial rule. The elite power, embodied in a dictator, thus stands on a weak foundation.

Brute face of a dictator is the face of helpless ruling elites, whose only path to secure rule is nothing but brutalizing the ruled. Crude culture a dictator practices is the culture of ruling elites as the dictator represents interest and culture of the ruling elites.

It’s an insidious culture of lies and plunders with iron hands, exhibition of extravagance, vulgar life style, rotten “aroma” and unsophisticated ideas. Their songs turn loud; their dances turn hops and jumps, their literature looses life, their games turn gamble, their intellectuals turn clowns, an act of perfidy to people.
And, the rule turns ineffective and weak. The elites not only fail to deliver prosperity to the ruled, but also fail to distribute booty among them to the satisfaction of all their factions. At least a section of them falls apart. At least a section of the ruling elites perceive corruption and coercion make their class rule vulnerable. Their masters, sitting across oceans, also gain the same knowledge that was taught by reality.

Process to unseat the dictator is initiated. But the dictator with a brain turned sterile by intoxicating power and privilege feels comfort with infantile easiness.

Dictator’s and the dictatorial elites’ imbalanced corrupt senses shamelessly gets shaken the moment they are thrown into a bin of despise. Disdain only accompanies the individual dictator and the ruling elites’ dictatorship. Like shadows, their shoes wait to be tattered by time, to be despised as those bring up memories of despotic rule, of a shameless ruling culture.