Contra Sen, overcoming a pandemic is like fighting a war

Is it possible for Amartya Sen to write a single sentence which is not foolish, false or both false and foolish? Let us look at his article on the Covid pandemic published in the Indian Express.

We have reason to take pride in the fact that India is the largest democracy in the world, and also the oldest in the developing world.

What possible reason could we have for taking pride in something for which we bore no responsibility? India, in its present form, can't be ruled in any way other than democratically. Whether a thing is old or young is scarcely a matter of pride. Only performance justifies that sentiment.

Aside from giving everyone a voice, democracy provides many practical benefits for us.

Parliamentary Democracy doesn't give everyone a voice. A Despotism may have a more intensive system of public consultation. It is not the case that a political arrangement, by itself, provides 'practical benefits'. Everything depends on who utilizes those arrangements and to what purpose they are utilized.

Sen's mistaken belief in the magical powers of Democracy causes him to complain that its magic is not being used to its full potential. That's the problem with magical thinking. You spend a lot of time complaining about why your shit does not turn into chocolate cake no matter how hard you wish that it do so.

We can, however, ask whether we are making good use of it now when the country, facing a gigantic health crisis, needs it most.

What does a country faced with a pandemic 'need most'? The effective enforcement of quarantines, social distancing, lockdowns, etc. This is a function of Administrative capacity and Executive competence. The form of Government is irrelevant.

First a bit of history.

Sen's own history is one of completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting even the most obvious facts of history.

As the British Raj ended, the newly established democracy in India started bearing practical fruits straightway.

Indian States had effective autonomy from 1937 onward- ten years before the British departed. But 'practical fruits' did not magically appear. In Sen's own Bengal a corrupt and incompetent democratically elected Government presided over a terrible famine. Interestingly, when Bangladesh became a democracy, it suffered a terrible famine because of corrupt and incompetent politicians. A Despotism can avoid a famine, if it wants to. A Democracy may say it wants to feed the hungry yet do the opposite as a result of corruption and incompetence.

Famines, which were a persistent occurrence throughout the history of authoritarian British rule,

Rubbish! The British stopped famines by the beginning of the Twentieth Century though they had been a persistent occurrence throughout Indian history. Then, a democratically elected Government in Sen's native Bengal, which had sole charge over Food policy, refused to implement the Famine Code and presided over a terrible famine from which a few people got very rich. Viceroy Wavell put an end to that Famine using the Army.

stopped abruptly with the establishment of a democratic India.

Famines had stopped after 1900 but started again because Bengal was ruled by corrupt and incompetent, albeit Democratically elected, politicians.

The last famine, the Bengal famine of 1943, which I witnessed as a child just before Independence, marked the end of colonial rule.

But Bengal had already got provincial autonomy. The thing was the fault of Bengali politicians. Viceroy Wavell ended it by using the Army.

India has had no famine since then,

But Bangladesh has because it suddenly got a Democratically elected sovereign Government.

and the ones that threatened to emerge in the early decades after Independence were firmly quashed.

By the same methods developed by British and Indian Civil Servants. Democracy had nothing to do with it.

How did this happen?

Sen thinks it is because Democracy has magical properties. Yet, he was a Professor of Economics when Bangladesh, a new Democracy, suffered a terrible Famine.

Democracy gives very strong incentives to the government to work hard to prevent famines.

Except if corrupt or incompetent Bengalis have been elected Premier.

The government has to respond promptly to people’s needs because of a combination of public discussion and elections.

Yet, this did not happen in Bengal on two occasions when Sen was alive.  How does he explain the failure of his magical remedy? The answer is that the proper abracadabra was not pronounced by some concerned party. For Sen this is the 'free press'. Yet, Bangladesh had a 'free press' at the time of its big famine. The fact is, if a 'first past the post' electoral system can ignore minorities, the Press has an even greater incentive to ignore illiterates with little purchasing power who are of no interest to advertisers.

However, elections alone could not do it. Indeed, democracy is never understandable only as a system of free elections, which are intermittent, often with a big gap between one and the next, and which can be swayed by the excitement that the immediate political context generates. For example, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was trailing badly in the polls before the Falklands War in 1982, got a huge bump from the war (as ruling governments often do) and comfortably won the general elections that followed, in 1983.

Incidentally, Sen was foolish enough to suggest that a famine might break out in Thatcher's England! In the context of the Second World War famine in Holland, he spoke of ' the collapse that would surely visit Britain if Mrs. Thatcher's quest for a "leaner and fitter" British economy goes on much longer.'

Also general elections in the parliamentary system are primarily about getting a majority of seats in the lower house of parliament. There is no formal rule about the interests or rights of minorities in the voting system. Given that, if all people were to vote according to their own personal interests, an election would not have been a strong saviour of famine victims, since only a small minority of people actually starve in any famine. However, a free press and open public discussion makes the distress and dangers faced by the vulnerable poor substantially known and understood by the public at large, destabilising the standing of a government that allows such a calamity to happen.

Bengal is the counter-example. It seems Bengalis didn't mind poor people dying in the streets for lack of a morsel of food. Politicians continued to give speeches and Newspapers continued to pander to whoever was paying them or threatening them with a beating.

Of course, the government itself, since it may also be run by people and parties capable of human sympathy and understanding, may be directly influenced by what they learn from the information and analyses emerging from public discussion.

A Despotism may care more than democratically elected politicians about avoiding a Famine or massive fatalities during a pandemic. It remains to be seen whether China will end up with fewer casualties than Trump's America. Yet, Trump may get re-elected. Consider the likely fate of the Governor of Florida- who insists that Churches be exempted from the lockdown. A Chinese official who did this would be shot. DeSantis might get re-elected.

Even though only a minority may actually face the deprivation of a famine, a listening majority, informed by public discussion and a free press, can make a government responsive.

Sen is being very silly. Hunger is linked to lower resistance to disease. It is in the self-interest of the rich to ensure that neither famines nor pandemics are allowed to get out of hand in places where they live or from which they make money. The problem with 'public discussion' is that cretins like Sen- who tell stupid lies- flourish in such spaces. But, their stupid lies can be combated with fake news of an opposite valency. So all you have is a dialogue of the deaf.

This can happen either through sympathy (when the government cares), or through the antipathy that would be generated by its inaction (when the government remains uncaring).

What actually obtains is that we condemn as 'fake news' the positive arguments put forward by those we don't like. John Stuart Mill came to see that 'punishability' was required for any mechanism to work. In public discussion, there is no penalty for talking nonsense. That is why it quickly degenerates. By contrast, a class of technocrats- but not tenured academics- may suffer reputationally and financially if they present false information or provide flawed analysis.

John Stuart Mill’s analysis of democracy as “governance by discussion” helps to identify the saviour of the threatened famine victim, in particular a free press and unrestrained discussion.

But Mill was wrong. He did not forsee the great War related Famines which would sweep Democratic Europe. Had he lived into the age of the 'Yellow Press' and the great Demagogues, he would have been appalled.

Tackling a social calamity is not like fighting a war which works best when a leader can use top-down power to order everyone to do what the leader wants — with no need for consultation.

Sen is a cretin. He doesn't get that when fighting a war, the Commander needs to get feedback from the troops on the ground. The same is true when running a business enterprise or directing a bureaucratic Agency. By contrast, in worthless branches of Academia, senile fools can talk 'top down' shite to a slavish caste of tenure seeking imbeciles.

In contrast, what is needed for dealing with a social calamity is participatory governance and alert public discussion.

But Sen participates in 'public discussion'. Yet, everything he says is stupid. We need expert discussion on the basis of empirical knowledge at the front line. We don't need 'participatory governance'. We just need a sound policy effectively implemented. This requires 'punishability' which itself is a function of the 'General Will' to see nutters and fuckwits locked up.

Famine victims may be socially distant from the relatively more affluent public, and so can be other sufferers in different social calamities, but listening to public discussion makes the policy-makers understand what needs to be done.

Sen doesn't get that famines are linked to pandemics. Smart people understand that they are themselves at risk if lots of poor people start dying. Public discussion may be quite useless because a lot of it might revolve around why God is punishing us or why Democracy has lost its magical power.

Napoleon may have been much better at commanding rather than listening, but this did not hamper his military success (except perhaps in his Russian campaign).

Commanding an army is about listening to smart people and then choosing the best course and promulgating it in an effective manner. By contrast, a Professor who never listens can go on repeating the same stupid shite decade after decade. He may even get a sort of 'Mother Theresa' type Nobel Prize because of his color. But Professors give no commands. They merely award increasingly worthless credentials.

However, for overcoming a social calamity, listening is an ever-present necessity.

Listening is an ever present necessity for avoiding getting knocked down by a truck when crossing the road. We need to use our eyes and ears and sense of smell to live safely. This is also true of holding down a job or running a business. However, when dealing with a 'social calamity' you should gouge out your eyes. This will make you a better listener.

This applies also to the calamity caused by a pandemic, in which some — the more affluent — may be concerned only about not getting the disease, while others have to worry also about earning an income (which may be threatened by the disease or by an anti-disease policy, such as a lockdown), and — for those away from home as migrant workers — about finding the means of getting back home.

 Some of the affluent may stop being affluent if the pandemic destroys the value of their investments. However, even if this is not the case, the affluent have an equal interest in anything which affects vectors of the disease including how poor people will react. Thus, like a total war, everyone really is in the same boat. Pretending otherwise, as Sen is doing here, is mischievous.

The different types of hazards from which different groups suffer have to be addressed, and this is much aided by a participatory democracy, in particular when the press is free, public discussion is unrestrained, and when governmental commands are informed by listening and consultation.

There is only one type of hazard, just as- during the Battle of Britain- there was only one type of hazard facing this country. No doubt, there were cretins like Sen back then who pretended that different groups would be differently affected by a Nazi invasion. Thankfully, nobody listened to such shitheads.

In the sudden crisis in India arising from the spread of COVID-19, the government has obviously been right to be concerned with rapidly stopping the spread. Social distancing as a remedy is also important and has been rightly favoured in Indian policy-making. Problems, however, arise from the fact that a single-minded pursuit of slowing the spread of the disease does not discriminate between different paths that can be taken in that pursuit, some of which could bring disaster and havoc in the lives of many millions of poor people, while others could helpfully include policies in the package that prevent such suffering.

This is foolish. Poor people are a vector. Dealing with them properly is necessary for the lockdown to succeed. The Government understands this and is playing catch up.  It remains to be seen whether it can ramp up administrative capacity in a timely enough manner.

Employment and income are basic concerns of the poor,

and the not so poor and those who are very wealthy and who care about their net worth.

and taking special care for preserving them whenever they are threatened is an essential requirement of policy-making.

No. Being smart is an essential requirement of good policy-making. Raising Income and Employment is a desirable objective of policy-making. 'Taking special care' doesn't help if the person taking that care is a Sen-tentious cretin.

It is worth noting in this context that even starvation and famines are causally connected with inadequacy of income and the inability of the impoverished to buy food (as extensive economic studies have brought out).

Nonsense! There is no 'causal connection' here. Food availability deficit is causally connected to starvation. Lots of people may have no income but if food is not scarce, they may be exceedingly well fed. By contrast, having a lot of money may not help you if there is strict rationing.

If a sudden lockdown prevents millions of labourers from earning an income, starvation in some scale cannot be far off.

Just as starvation was not far off in Thatcher's Britain according to Sen. The fact is there will be no starvation unless there is food availability deficit. There is plenty of money to finance the thing.

Even the US, which is often taken to be a quintessential free enterprise economy (as in many ways it indeed is), has instituted income subsidies through massive federal spending for the unemployed and the poor.

The CARES Act promises to provide 2 trillion dollars- some 10 percent of GDP. Yet, without such expenditure, it is possible that Government Revenue and the deficit will be more adversely affected. Thus it is a matter of good business for the 'Stationary Bandit' to unloosen its purse strings at this time.

In the emergence and acceptance of such socially protective measures in America, a crucial part has been played by public discussion, including advocacy from the political opposition.

Because everyone knows what a great listener Trump is. The fact that he is a Billionaire who doesn't want to get poorer played no part in this.

In India the institutional mechanism for keeping the poor away from deprivation and destitution will have to relate to its own economic conditions, but it is not hard to consider possible protective arrangements, such as devoting more public funds for helping the poor (which gets a comparatively small allocation in the central budget as things stand), including feeding arrangements in large national scale, and drawing on the 60 million tons of rice and wheat that remain unused in the godowns of the Food Corporation of India. The ways and means of getting displaced migrant labourers back to their homes, and making arrangements for their resettlement, paying attention to their disease status and health care, are also challenging issues that call for careful listening rather than inflexible decisions without proper consultation.

What is clear from the Indian experience is that forecasting, not listening, was where the Government fell down. It did not predict the scale of the problem posed by India's vast migrant population. There is an idiographic aspect to this- different places need different solutions. Sadly, 'public discussion' was of no help. It played catch up just like the Government. With hindsight, both the Center and the States had not done the necessary contingency planning. Of course, this is equally true of many Western Democracies. However, India is more like China and needs to look at what has worked there.

Listening is central in the government’s task of preventing social calamity — hearing what the problems are, where exactly they have hit, and how they affect the victims.

By the time there is something to listen to it is too late. Predicting is what is important. We don't need to listen to what migrant workers are saying now. We should have predicted what would have happened and given them a superior alternative.

Rather than muzzling the media and threatening dissenters with punitive measures (and remaining politically unchallenged), governance can be greatly helped by informed public discussion.

The current crisis shows that the opposite is the case. Public discussion is about stuff that has already happened. We need to look at contingencies and see how they might play out and, on that basis, make proper preparations. This means proactively recruiting smart people with idiographic expert knowledge to 'game' various scenarios in the same way that the Military 'games' various scenarios. Contra Sen, this is a War. We instinctively understand this. A virus attacks our immune system. The body has defenes and the 'herd' must develop immunity. 'Flattening the curve' is not, to quote Churchill, 'the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.' Yet people all over the world, regardless of type of political regime, are prepared to do what is required to ensure we win this battle.

Overcoming a pandemic may look like fighting a war, but the real need is far from that.

Sen thinks the real need is for his worthless type of 'public discussion'. Democracy has magical properties provided the right sort of 'public discussion' is going on. There can't be any famine or pandemic if people are saying the right things and listening to each other respectfully as they repeat those things. The truth is far different. Only senile Academics can pretend to be useful by talking worthless shite. Whether we are speaking of fighting a war or a pandemic or running a business enterprise, we have to visualize various contingencies and make plans accordingly. The Military does this explicitly. Sen may think that the Commander gives orders and then goes to sleep. The facts are quite different. In life we have to prepare ourselves for catastrophic outcomes. In Economics, this is called implementing a 'Regret Minimizing strategy.' In a world of radical, 'Knightian', Uncertainty, we need to think the unthinkable and plan for the worst case scenario. Expected Utility Theory is positively mischievous in this context. Sen took the wrong turning fifty years ago. That is why he has written nothing but worthless shite with such consistency decade after decade.