Whether one should remain just at all has been a question for so long. History consists of examples where the people who were not just, still enjoyed the fruit of success in their lives, the reason cited again is the famous proverb, "Until you are caught, you are innocent so rather than abstaining from bad, try not to get caught" This concept has however got a severe castigation by Socrates, who have ascertained that though some people can get away with the enjoying the perks in life with out being just; if whole society would become unjust, there would be a complete chaos since if every person of society tries to live and fulfill his own ambitions, there is very little left for the community living. Hence he concludes in his book "The republic" that in the longer run development of the just society is in the best interest for everyone.
Another question a modern pragmatist will ask "why at all it is necessary to devote ourselves to this question of making a just society", the answer is perhaps answered by the the Martin Luther King when he asserted,
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Similar words were echoed by the Winston Churchill when he suggested
All great things are quite simple and many of them can be described in a single word, Hope, equality, freedom and Justice;
In modern times, though the context have changed but the question have remained more or less the same. Before starting the discussion on what is justice and thus social justice, lets us consider some thumb rules which all modern philosophers agree and democracies have adopted.
1. Equal Justice for equals
This term of justice is very much co related to the concept of quality, the equality does not necessarily means the equality in the position a person finally attains in his social or public life but the means of equality of opportunity. Kant have once said, every person posses dignity, once this is awarded the next thing that one would require is the equality of opportunity to fulfill their dreams. This also includes the justice in giving the equal treatment to all the people which is independent on the sex, caste and religion.
2. Proportionate Justice
The equal opportunity does not mean all the members of the society would utilize it fully. Some members of the society would en cash the opportunity awarded to them while some other would just not, hence this is very obvious for a society to do the justice with the person in accordance with the skill one posses. The highly skilled person generally is given more recognition than the one who is somewhat below par. A doctor is off course has been more venerated than a manual labor. This concept of proportional justice does not mean applies on the two people have similar skills, thus recognizing the male doctor over a female in spite of the face that both posses the same degree would not be counted as a proportionate justice.
Thus for the just society, the equal treatment has to be carefully balanced with the proportionate justice without getting lopsided towards either.
3. Recognizing the special needs of the needy
The term indicates that the society has to consider the needs for those who are lying in lowest stratum while distributing the rewards and the responsibility. This conception has been coined as even the proportional justice can not guarantee that the affirmative action. Hence there has to exist some safeguard for those who do not have the leisure of the basic amenities like some others. Recognizing the special needs does not necessarily means the violation of the equality among equals, since the special needs are only recognized for those who are considered as unequal( below par) with the others.
Once agreeing on the fact the the just society have to recognize the needs for the marginalized in it, the question arises what is the parameter to judge who is at need. It could be based on the financial status, physically disability or the any other reason which may vary society to society.
In Indian context, the constitution framers decided to remove the malice of the "untouchability" from the society and wished to make those at par with the the others who have been oppressed on the name of caste and creed. For this reason the constitution have reserved some of the seats in educational institutions and in governmental jobs to promote the equitable growth. What is makes the selection of the criteria of "caste" as a parameter is also echoed by the Jai Prakash Narayan, He once said,
Those who are at the lowest stratum in the caste system of India are also more close to face financial bankruptcy .
The basic objective thus of the government is the to ensure the level playing field for all of it's members so as each person can persue his or her objective in life with full freedom.
There have however been a lot's of question on what should be the parameter of selecting the needy and who should be authorized to take the decision on it. A person if is allowed to take the decision on what is the parameter for choosing the needs of the needy may get biased and favor those which personally benefit himself. This has been seen in some states of India where the reservation meant for poors have been twisted to accommodate even those who do not fall in the categories of needy for the sake of getting the political advantages. This question has been answered by John Rawl's theory of Justice.
John Rawl's theory of Justice
When the person are allowed to take the decision on the framework of the society, not all of them can be expected to take the equitable position and some of them would design the architecture which would offer them the most privileged position in it. So how should such architecture be choosed?
John Rawl tries to answer this by suggesting that the thinking should be done under the "veil of ignorance" in which a person should decide the architecture of the society without knowing his own position in it. When one has to design the aspects of the society on this basis, one has to consider the possibility of him getting the worst and thus would try to make the socity most equitable one.
John Rawl thought was that it is not the morality but the rationality which has to be the basic aspect of the determining the form of the equiable society. He thus suggested that working under the "veil of ignorance" is the best way out for a equitable society.
Formulating the equitable policy thus becomes a important question for a just society. Some difference in the members of the society is justifiable but there must not be any difference in terms of the the opportunities. So those who are poor and are lying in the lowest stratum of the society should be given a certain minimum assistance which would ensure the level playing field. what could be the "minimum level of assistance" have been investigated by the various governmental and other institutions the likes of WHO and the various NGO, the reports generally infers to include the basic healthcare facilities, elementary education and the food securities. These basic minimum assistance has been considered as the important responsibility of the welfare government as it encircles the most vulnerable.
Once the formulation of the basic minimum assistance has been agreed, the next problem arises is the method of implementation of this policy. There has been a controversy as who should be given the role of the implementer? This invokes the question of State vs the Market.
State vs the Market.
What is the role of the government in ensuring the equitable growth and promoting the social justice? The state has to be on the board but what would be the roles it should be equipped with? The socialist regimes would like to take all the work themselves. This school of thought believes that state can only be the unbiased and natural choice for promoting the equal growth among the citizens. They cite the example that market will not cater anyone who is not willing to pay or can not pay at all. This has been seen in 2008 Financial crises that if market is left unchecked, the results could be catastrophic.
This model was relentlessly pressed hard in India after independence. The state was considered as the engine for promoting the growth where the private players were dubbed as "inefficient and incapable of bringing anything in to the table". This plan however has failed a big way when the growth rate were dismal in the years after independence.
A consolation has been thus arranged which has been very much in the line with the keynesian economics which calls for the government withdrawing it's role as the sole engine of development by means of the public sector allowing the private players to fill the void, however it is to remain the control on the business and also to regulate it by means of the monetary and financial policies.
The collapse of the socialist governments and the 2008 financial crises points to phenomenon that the market and state needs to co exists together, if anyone is left unchecked; the results could be catastrophic.
No matter how long this discussion goes on; what would be the methods to adopt the social justice, there has been almost a unanimity that we need to have some affirmative actions in place to prepare a just society who according to the Bharat Ratna and the founding father of Indian constitution B.R. Ambedkar,
A society where the ascending sense of reverence and the descending sense of contempt is dissolved into a compassionate society.
This is where I'd like to conclude, Thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment