The difference between the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement and the movement in the Arab World, particularly in Tunisia and Egypt, popularly being referred to as the Jasmine Revolution, is that although the methods adopted in both the cases are similar, the Arab world movement has been against the political system whereas the USA movement of the common man is against the corporate world symbolised by Wall Street. The OWS is not anti-government; it is anti-system. This is a movement of financially more literate people. They are incensed by the prevailing income disparity. Issues like loss of jobs, cuts in wages, inflation and rising cost of living are providing fuel to their rage.
The level of disparity is so much high that it is generally felt that it cannot be addressed merely by superficial methods. It is reported that the income of one person, Goldman, is 46 million US dollars that is more than the GDP of hundred countries of the UNO. In other words, income of one person exceeds the total GDP of about half of the UN members. Such an accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few individuals is being resisted by the American population. So the movement is not related to sanstha parivartan (change of political administration), rather it relates to wayawastha parivartan (system replacement). What they are talking about is a change in financial system and the issue of change in governance like that in the Arab world, has not cropped up.
A major problem with the event is who will provide leadership to the public outcry because the activities we witnessed in Tunisia and are witnessing in USA are that of leaderless and ideology-less movement. People angered by worsening situation have come out in the open. But the lack of leadership and ideology may take them nowhere. It appears that in the case of Egypt things are not consolidating and the movement may disintegrate.
Things should be understood in correct perspective. The larger immediate perspective is the situation as it is and as it may turn out in the USA and its resultant impact on the world economy. The second perspective is the situation in India. And the other concern is that what message it has for the group to which we belong, persons talking about Islamic finance.
US AND EUROPIAN PERSPECTIVE
President Obama wants job creation along with taxing the rich and regulation of financial institutions, as he has spoken recently while supporting the movement. Job creation seems to be the immediate concern. As regards banks and financial institutions it is being said that they are ‘too big to fall.’ The counter logic is that they are ‘too big to exist.’ The argument means that they should not be left to crumble as the effects would be catastrophic; so provide them with huge funds and significant budgetary allocations, as is being done. The counter argument is that their continuation in their present size is dangerous. So beware, check them, cut them to size, before they eat all the available wealth and make the whole economy bankrupt. This is a paradigm shift with regard to market that there should not exist very big and unmanageable entities. They are dangerous. Another imperative is that the government spending should increase in social sector so that more jobs may be created. The demand for taxing the rich is in line with the above demands.
INDIAN, OTHER PERSPECTIVES
A dangerous debate is going on in India regarding providing licences for banking through auction and a lobby is working in this regard. This is a totally business-oriented approach devoid of any serious socio-economic concern. The anti-subsidy lobbyists and those demanding reduction of social sector expenditure like NREGA are active in India. These are being resisted by the socially concerned group. The US and European public outcry should be understood in India too and correct lessons should be drawn from that.
SERIOUS WORK, NOT SLOGANS REQUIRED
This is not time for slogan making by the Islamists that US has failed, capitalism has failed and so we are triumphant. This is a serious issue and the proponents of Islamic and interest-free alternative economic system have not done the required home work to provide answers to the relevant questions that have cropped up. On the contrary, these people are still trapped in the same net of finance and providing opportunities to the rich and wealthy. The way Islamic finance has overshadowed the Islamic economics is not a good sign. We are speaking in favour of what is failing and on the way out. We should do a critical analysis of the concerns we are addressing. These proponents of Islamic finance are simply informing the world how to earn halal profit. They are not talking about the fair distribution of wealth and method of evolving a just society ensuring equitable distribution of resources. It appears that justice and equity is not the basic concern, maximisation of profit is the final aim. The issues of wages, employment and prices should be the concern, and Islamic economists must provide suitable answers. If they do, they are relevant; otherwise, the developments are in the opposite direction and the concerns are misplaced and not in tune with needs of the world today.
[as told to Dr. Waquar Anwar]