Dear Yapa,

Don’t you think that ‘Discombobulate’ is a fitting word to the response ?

Dear Ranil;

I will answer your second question first.

2. Do you think that Buddhist philosophy can (or not) contribute to a new development paradigm?

Really this is not a problem of mine, but one prevailing in the broad society.

You must know about the worldwide the campaign for secular states, to keep religions away from governance/politics, which has been debated even in this blog so many times. They back the idea with political theories, giving “positive” examples from the western democracies. There logic is all the religions should be kept away from public affairs and should be limited to individual beliefs/preferences. According this ideology any religion is a religion. No religion should be given any preference over any other. The people who advocate religions for “non personal activities” in the society can be seen called by the names such as “racists or extremists or Chauvinists”.

So, how can you prevent yourself be called by one of the names above, as you suggest to make use of one of the religions to achieve such a broad goal in the society?

Do you say there is any means to use a religion in a society without being called as a racist or extremist or any other brand name? On the other hand, how do you justify your proposition alone. If somebody from other religions says that they have a equal right to propose their religion also to use the same way for the goal you are suggesting on the basis of equality. How do you justify your special choice of Buddhism, amidst this principle of equality?

In general, what we have to see is whether there is any possibility to use if there is something good in a religion. Is there a possibility to assess a good (if any)in a religion to use in the broad society, not contradicting the present day social/political norms?

I think the answer for your first question will depend on the answer to the above.

“1. Do you think that the Bhutanese are fundamentalists (after all they are promoting a non-consensus ideology at Rio +20)?'”

Thanks!

Dear Rabindra,
Please see my comment in reply to Yapa and then let us examine your stand and evaluate as to who the bigot may be. The Multinational corporations have been pushing your line for a long time now. Any defense of the planet or its people is denounced by them as ‘ looking at the world through green specs’. Are you then a supporter of Keynesian economics? What colour specs would those be?

Dear Yapa,

In answer to your questions:

1. Do you have any reason or explanation for you not to be called a fundamentalist?

A If you think that being an Ecologist is a ‘fundamentalist’ I will happily wear your term. The problem for Ecologists as Aldo Leopoldo pointed out is that ‘The price we pay for ecological knowledge is an acute awareness of the wounds of the world’. I think that a large percentage of the world population really does care what happens to our planet. If you think that the ideas that we advocate is ‘a non-consensus ideology ‘ it will be interesting to see your data.

.2. What is your idea about the role of Buddhism for ills in our society?

A. As I find that the Buddha describes the functioning of the ecosystem in a most lucid way, I feel that accepting and living by the values that he stated could indeed cure many ills of our society and its environment. You make a huge mistake if you think that the philosophy of the Buddha can be equated the use of the labels (coined as Political Buddhism/Sinhala Buddhism) that are used to justify actions that run totally counter to this philosophy.

Now having responded to your questions, I would also like to pose the following questions to you:
1. Do you think that the Bhutanese are fundamentalists (after all they are promoting a non-consensus ideology at Rio +20)?
2. Do you think that Buddhist philosophy can (or not) contribute to a new development paradigm?

Then the reader will be able to get a better idea as to what our personal values and interests are.

Essential reading for those who believe ‘benevolent dictators outperform democracies in sustainable economic development’.

Aleksandr Shkolnikov, “The Benevolent Dictator Myth: Strong Leaders versus Strong Institutions,” Center for International Private Enterprise, June 15, 2011.
http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/pdf/061511.pdf

Abstract:
There is a real danger that the search for a benevolent dictator may become a development mantra in many countries. Proponents of democracy should take notice and show that democracy is the path for sustainable development, and that there are no substitutes for institutional reforms in seeking growth and development.
The rise in interest of having a strong leader, often with unchecked power, rather than a democratic government is driven in part by the continued rapid economic growth of Asian tigers among the stagnation of economies in Western Europe and the United States.

History is also playing its part. As Ronald J. Gilson from Stanford Law School points out in his recent paper, only a relatively small number of countries have experienced successful development since World War II and among those there are many autocratic governments that have successfully transformed their economies. The perception that democracies have experienced unstable economic performance in the past decades as compared to authoritarian regimes perpetuates the myth. It is only a perception, because there is no concrete evidence that autocracies outperform democracies across the board. The data is inconclusive.

The interest in finding that next great leader is also driven in part by the ability of countries like Singapore to deal with a problem that keeps so many nations underdeveloped: corruption. As often as corruption comes up in conversations with reformers worldwide, they are very interested in copying the Singapore approach to controlling it rather than looking at the experience of a half-dozen of Singapore’s democratic neighbors on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Although Singapore stands out, the reality is that the majority of countries able to curb corruption are democratic, and those at the bottom of TI’s CPI, Global Integrity’s rankings, or the World Bank’s governance indicators are failed or failing democracies and authoritarian regimes.

and

Ronald J. Gilson and Curtis J. Milhaupt, Economically Benevolent Dictators: Lessons for Developing Democracies, Stanford Public Law Working Paper, No. 1564925 / Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper, No. 371 (2010).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1658243_code17982.pdf?abstractid=1564925&mirid=1

Abstract:
The post-war experience of developing countries leads to two depressing conclusions: only a small number of countries have successfully developed; and development theory has not produced development. In this article we examine one critical fact that might provide insights into the development conundrum: Some autocratic regimes have fundamentally transformed their economies, despite serious deficiencies along a range of other dimensions. Our aim is to understand how growth came about in these regimes, and whether emerging democracies might learn something important from these experiences.

Our thesis is that in these economically successful countries, the authoritarian regime managed a critical juncture in the country’s development – entry into global commerce by the transition from small-scale, relational exchange, to exchange where performance is supported by government action, whether based on the potential for formal third party enforcement or by the threat of informal government sanctions. Compared to a weak democracy, a growth-favoring dictator may have an advantage in overcoming political economy obstacles to credibly committing that rent seeking will not dissipate private investment.

We explore this hypothesis by examining the successful development experiences of three countries in the late twentieth century: Chile under Augusto Pinochet; South Korea under Park Chung-Hee; and China under Deng Xiaoping and his successors. Although the macroeconomic policies and institutional strategies of the three countries differed significantly, each ruler found ways to credibly commit his regime to growth. Decades of law reform activity by the World Bank, IMF, and other international organizations, along with a vast academic literature, assume that an impartial judiciary is the key to the transition from relational to market exchange. Our study reveals that a variety of alternatives are possible.

We then consider a now familiar question raised about contemporary China: Does economic development inexorably lead to political liberalization? The conventional wisdom says yes, drawing support from the experience of Chile and South Korea. We show that the conventional wisdom overlooks important features of the Chilean and Korean historical experiences that bear directly on China. The same incentive structures that have propelled Chinese economic growth are likely slow political liberalization.

Riza

Here is what you want:

http://groundviews.org/2012/05/07/democracy-good-governance-human-rights-and-the-effective-implementation-of-the-llrc-report/

I totally agree with Thilina Rajapakse, The time for relying on mythical Benevolent Dictators are gone. Ever since our independance, we have given more weight to the belief that good leaders would build the nation as a modern democracy. Deplorably, since independance all the development indicators are on the negative and the only development that we saw is the population growth of the of political class that have grown from Village Council to the Parliament since 1948. So much of decentralised administrative units with zero development and administration.

The need of the hour is Rule by Rules and not by Rulers. We are a constitutional democracy and our allegience is to the constitution and not to a party or a person. Unfortunately every time a change of government takes place, national policies too undergo change to the whims and fancies of the new ruling clique. This should stop. The country should be run by policies and programmes based on long term interests and sustainable goals and the itinerant politicians who come and go should only implement policies chaulked by the bureacrats/technokrats.

Eversince our 1948, our politicians’ development strategies were more on building their powers base as opposed to developing the nation. Their arguments and counter arguments with the Oppositions is not about the effective ways of developing the nation but of mudslinging at each other.

Today Sri Lanka is sitting on top of a volcano and our leaders are oblivious and our systems are ill prepared. Some of the issues that would threaten us in the near future are Climate Change, Energy Crisis, Collapse of Education/Health, Geriatrics, dependancy ratio of individuals upon family and society, sustainability and failure of governance etc etc.

Unbelievably neither the Government nor the Opposition is addressing these issues that confront the nation. Instead, to confound and confuse the people and to divert attention from burning problems, the power structure on both sides of the divide are hiding behind the issues of Race, Ethnicities and Religion without building this country as a place for justice, equity, peace and good governance thereby building a sustainable nation.

What the concerned citizens should do is demand a strong system instead of a mythical Benevolent Dictator, if they want sustainable development.