 |
| Two boys look out over a relief camp. More than 12 million flood victims remain reliant on food handouts. |
As the flood victims are forced by the landlords to evacuate their homes because of their inability to pay rent, they have begun to cluster in relief camps with little opportunity to find work. According to the article, 12 million people are still relying on handouts to survive. The lack of permanence in terms of shelter, nutrition and livelihood only instills fear, anger and desperation that will increase the burden on relief workers as well as the demand for resources.
Democracy is unlikely to take place, given that the country's most power institution is the military. The protocol reward for retired generals is still land ownership, and many of them continue to wield great influence after retirement. From a landowner's perspective, chasing away peasants who are unable to pay rent benefits them in the short-term as market supply and demand dictates that those who can pay will get to use the land. The flood also happens to be an undisputed excuse to displace the peasants and carry on with plans to rent the land out to big capital. Thus, without shouldering any responsibilities in the name of economics, their ex-tenants are now being fed by global organizations while landowners continue to make money from private capital.
With their vested interests and inclination towards profit combined with the lack of moral responsibility, there is no pressure on landowners to do anything about the flood victims. However, the congregating of displaced peasants in relief camps is likely to form a critical mass of dissidence which may bubble into social unrest that will inevitably repel investors and big capital, no matter how much assurance the military gives or how strong they are. If this happens,the landowners will be the ones to lose out. Should among them however, one landowner show mercy to flood victims by providing land for settlement-building while pushing back rent payment to later dates, he stands to reap benefits not available to his neighbors.
Firstly, with the assurance of a home to stay in, the peasants are likely to cooperate to clear away the rubble, and are less likely to come into conflict with the landowners should relocation be required. Such a landowner will actually gain power in terms of dictating who should stay where, which in time will actually become an institutionalized process, unlike the past where folk culture and religion made such issues extremely thorny to handle. With proper planning, the rebuilding of an entire town can be made suitable for the entry of capital.
Secondly, with democracy nowhere in sight, most landowners are inclined to underestimate the power of their people's allegiance. By providing a place to stay and pushing back the rent payments to later dates, such a landowner will be able to "purchase" the allegiance and support of the people, which will eventually root his position in the territory as a leader. Generally, one can expect fewer conflicts to emerge from the territory and this is a big attraction to capital, which will actually raise the demand and eventually the cost of renting out the land. Less land set aside for capital does not necessarily mean lower returns, as demand plays a huge factor in pushing rents up and down.
Nonetheless, the landowners have a vested interest to cooperate with one another to maximize the benefits for themselves, and it is unlikely that one of them will try something different for fear of backlash from the others. It will indeed take a lot more convincing to get them to realize that standing together might keep them strong for now, but should they fall, they will all tumble together. The good news is, should one of them be courageous enough to walk down the lonely road of mercy, circumstances might just force the rest of them to follow suit, with the pioneer reaping the biggest rewards.
No comments:
Post a Comment