Always thought what is the purpose of having a government? Can't there be a society with no government? The answer to the second question was provided by Karl Marx in his theories. He predicted a future with no state and class in the society. Everyone will have equal access to resources to fulfill his/her needs. The world has, however, proved him wrong. No society emerged on the lines as predicted by Marx. Infact, the capitalist society has not witnessed great proletariat revolutions even with the persisting exploitation to some extent.
In a sense, the world has emerged to a stage where the question of existence of governments have gone unquestioned. It has continued to exist. Only the role of governments may have shifted from being a regulator to a facilitator in some countries depending upon the stage of development.
Well, the reason for such structure is not hard to determine. Governments are required to maintain and regulate the society so that it perform its functions within a definite set of rules and regulations. Otherwise, an anomic situation may thrive. As a society advance economically and intellectually, the regulatory role reduces. People in such society come to a stage where they internalise the DOs and DONTs of the society.
Having deliberated upon the question of existence of government, the next question that comes to mind is: For whom the government works and for whom should it work?
World over there are variations with regard to the basic functioning of a government, In Socialist countries like India, Venezuela, China (not Communist exactly) etc the State aspires to work for those who "need" its help. It aims to create an equitable society (well, that is what the Constitution of these countries say in letter) so that gaps can be filled with respect to access of resources to lead a dignified life. The Capitalist society, on the other hand, gives free hand to individuals to gain and utilise resources according to their capability. The Western Countries are predominantly capitalistic.
India presents a good example for a researcher interested in economic nature of society. On paper, India wants to create a socialistic economy. However, as globalization is unfolding, it cannot be said with certainty that India is on its stated path. It is true that the State has been adopting principles which is expected to reduce the gap (measured by the Gini Coefficient).
However, there is an interesting thing to be noted here. India, as a nation, claim that the middle class has increased to an unprecedented level. Unfortunately, without any proper definition for the so-called middle class, everyone in India calls himself/herself as belonging to middle class.
Mr. Harsh Mander, in his recently launched book, has stated that this middle class is basically the top 10% of India. The majority of population (may be close to 50%) live below or close to the poverty bracket. The idea we are following is that instead of investing directly for the welfare of those at the bottom, economic growth will percolate to the lower levels of the strata. This has been the arguement since independence. It is debatable if the middle class has emerged out of the poor class, or has been the product of factors like increasing population (this leads to the increase in actual numbers). This is particularly important because we have probably not significantly reduced the poor class (both absolute number and percentage). This can be said because the official data has always been disputed. Other researches have provided with data that vary widely with the official data.
Even if the official arguement is accepted that poverty has reduced since independence, it is not sufficient. The Preamble of our Constitution mentions that every citizen should lead a "dignified" life. It is disturbing to guess how can a person lead a life of dignity with resources sufficient just for survival.
This situation demands that the government may change its strategy and the point of focus to fulfill its constitutional mandates.
