One Sunday morning began a week, which can be aptly called the Diana week, for it focused the attention of the World on the death of a Princess. It was not just the death but the issues that it raised in its trail.
A photograph of a kiss by the Princess to a son of an Egyptian billionaire had been sold for a couple of million US dollars. The quest to become a millionaire by getting the "right" photograph would be motivation enough for a Royal hunt on a no holds barred basis, without reason, compassion or sane judgement. At the other end of the globe, in the economies of South Asian nations there was a hunt by speculators to get the "right" bet. The hunt of the paparazzi resulted in the death of a princess, and the hunt of the speculators led to the destabilisation of national economies and the loss of thousands of jobs.
Both hunts were dictated by the market. The Paparazzi were hunters on behalf of the market of the print media, but the media itself was dictated by what people bought. In the media market it was claimed that it is not society or the state that can protect the privacy of an individual but the owners of the media and their editor’s who seem to have the sole custodial right of determining the distinction between what is public and what is private and their judgement would be based on the signals given by the market. By a process of deduction, it is the individual making his choice of buying a newspaper, who regulates the market. So powerful and persuasive is this propaganda that a compassionate lady left at the gates of the Buckingham Palace, a note with her flowers stating that by purchasing the tabloids, she was responsible for the death of her princess.
The ideologues of the free market claim that the market regulates itself and any regulation by the state or society is considered illegitimate. Regulatory mechanisms are merely facilitators to ensure the smooth operation of speculators. It is argued that every investor is motivated by the sole reason of making a profit/ gain and the dimension of time is part of the judgement of the investor. How then can there be a distinction between an investor who keeps his money over a long time and a fly by night operator ? No society or state can make such distinctions, only the market will decide. And so in the East, when the Malaysian Government tried to put restrictions, it was forced to retract on speculators.
The Princess was not a human being, a living organism with feelings, with a need for privacy, with a need to be herself at least part of the time. She was a commodity that sold - to be chased to her death. There was money to be made, even if she was dying, big money could be made. After all it was not a human being struggling between life and death, in her death she was a commodity that sells. If the homes where men do not allow their women to be seen without their head covered are inundated by audio visual images of semi - nude women, its the market that decides. At best one can appeal to the likes of Murdoch to be merciful and exercise restraint on the degree of nudity that is to be shown. After all, it is argued, even a Murdoch would be sensitive to the historical and cultural values of a society.
Similarly, if the market arbitrates in favour of those who lament about restrictions on the import of entertainment electronics against those who want to give priority to the import of Vitamin A to prevent blindness, it is argued that it is the will of the God, of the market gospel. Alternatively, buy both, for there is a market for both. And if you do not have the hard currency to do that, sell the accumulated assets of the people or their resources both natural and agricultural, even if that will lead to the pauperisation, malnutrition or starvation of those below the poverty line.
The Egyptian press argues that the death of the Princess has more to it than meets the eye. It could be a murder, cleverly plotted and motivated by the horror of the distinct possibility of the future King of England having a Muslim of third world origin for a step brother. Prime Minister Mahatiar Mohammed gave vent to his frustration by thundering away that the speculators were neo colonialists. The people of the third world understand and empathise with these sentiments. This phenomenon would worsen as a result of the growing gap between the highly industrialised and the underdeveloped countries with most migration controls aimed at creating second class persons, forcing them to be available for exploitation and even deprived of the right to fight back.
At the end of the week, the "saint of the gutters" Mother Teresa dies. Her successor declares, "we will lose our jobs if we try to eradicate poverty. Why the poor are poor is not our concern." She was merely reflecting the sentiments of the market. The market of charity, sustained by those who came rushing to India and ironically made a pageant of the death of a women who in life reflected the virtues of simplicity and piety. It is argued that charity and targeted subsidies financed from the sale of people’s assets are just interim arrangements. Let the free market work its magic. Profits and the concentration of wealth is a positive thing, for only with the incentive of being able to accumulate and enjoy more wealth would individuals be made to invest more in productive activity. As India’s former Finance Minister Manmohan Singh asserted: "We have to create more wealth before we talk of more equitable distribution." The poor have only to wait for their turn, for wealth would eventually trickle down. Any attempt to bring in the question of equity or democratic control of the market is dismissed out of hand as archaic thinking based on old fashioned ideas.
And so the week ends, and another begins. The reality of … an increasing impoverishment of entire nations and geographical areas, increasing unemployment, entrenched gender inequality, decreasing real incomes, deteriorating pensions and social security benefits, reduced access to public services….. remains with us to endure and possibly change with a collective will.