Elaboración de programas turísticos

Beck (1992: 185) argues that contemporary risks have created the requirement for a ‘new political culture’ [italics in the original] as a means of undertaking decision-

making. According to Beck (ibid.), this involves ‘new demands for political participation outside the political system [italics in the original].

The legitimation of democracy as a meso level institutional concern in Andhra Pradesh is explored using the core-periphery model developed by Habermas (1996: 356-359). This posits that democratic legitimacy is characterised by a ‘circulation of power’ between the core of government and the periphery of civil society. Here, legitimacy is derived not only from the distribution (and redistribution) of material resources as a concern for promoting social justice in the alleviation of risk; it is also secured through the promotion of epistemic justice with regard to the inclusion of micro level discourses of risk within wider attempts to construct knowledge pertaining to the definition of risk, and to the future development of society.

Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth (2003) discuss the relative significance of recognition and redistribution in securing social justice. This thesis asserts, in line with Fraser, that both are essential to the negotiation of risk. In the current study, social justice relates to the distribution of resources as a material concern, while epistemic justice refers to the inclusion of potentially marginalised normative perspectives in attempts to define risk politically. Both are concerned with the material alleviation of risk, though it is argued that epistemic justice can occur through democratic praxis in the absence of social justice, given adequate representation and/or the sufficient mobilisation of interests. It is argued that this is

occurring, to some extent, in the current study, due to the efforts of NGOs in representing the discourses of risk asserted by the economically marginalised.

This thesis recognises that the mass mobilisations which seek to highlight the risks of Bt cotton eschew the institutionalised structures of democratic praxis in the villages. Nonetheless, the thesis adopts the Habermasian model to illustrate that these mobilisations are not outside the political system as Beck suggests, but are central to it, and vital to securing its legitimacy. This is particularly true given the threat of an illegitimate concentration of power which, as the analysis highlights, characterises the attempts of certain power holders to secure closure in risk definition.

The primary risk at the meso level is that of ‘legitimation crisis’ (Habermas, [1973], 1976). Habermas (ibid.: 2) argues that a legitimation crisis ensues when ‘fewer possibilities for problem solving are allowed than are necessary for the continued existence of the system.’ The meso level analysis highlights, however, that the risk of legitimation crisis is not primarily associated with an inability to establish solutions with regard to risk; instead, it arises from the possibility that a theoretically illegitimate institutionalisation of power will be legitimated as part of democratic praxis itself.

The meso level study involves ten participants from the areas of politics (the Congress Party and Communist Party (Marxist)), regulation (the Review

Committee on Genetic Modification), four representatives from industry (all from Monsanto), and three NGOs (the Deccan Development Society, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and Crops Jangaon). The meso level analysis focusses on the way in which the ideological struggle for legitimation of particular definitions of risk is mediated through power relations associated with the institutional positioning of the participants as part of democratic praxis.

The analysis highlights the way in which the struggle at the meso level relates to conflicts regarding the institutionalisation of power, and the type of knowledge construction which will form the basis of development. This thesis argues that this legitimation struggle will be highly relevant in the new state of Telangana, and will determine the degree of legitimacy associated with its democratic praxis, as well as the normative conceptualisation of development which will inform the macro constitution of Telangana society. This supports the view of Clark (2007: 195) that ‘legitimacy [is] a constitutive element within a society.’ It is also, however, highly relevant to the global struggle to establish knowledge on the risk of Bt technology as a concern of the collective of humanity.

Beck (1994: 8) argues that risk society is associated with a ‘profound institutional crisis’. The current research highlights that this relates to attempts to institutionalise power with regard to knowledge construction. This indicates that scientific knowledge is being asserted as a means of securing democratic closure in risk definition. This relates to the ‘authoritarian technocracy’ (1995: 166) described by

Beck. When assessed theoretically, the exercise of power which this would entail would be deleterious to democratic legitimacy, and significantly limit the ability of those on the periphery to have their normative perspectives concerning development recognised. The blending of scientific knowledge with a neo-liberal market rationale is highlighted in the emergence of intellectual property rights administered by the World Trade Organisation,12 as well as the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative (Raina, 2006: 1622) which seeks to establish stronger research partnerships between the corporate sector and public research institutions.

The potential for a hegemonic concentration of power secured through scientific knowledge within risk society is particularly evident in the proposed legislation to introduce a Biotechnology Regulation Authority of India, formed of eminent scientists. This would supersede the government as the apex decision-making body on biotechnology in India (Gupta, 2011: 739). It is argued that such an institutionalisation would secure an illegitimate exercise of power within democratic praxis itself, and support the authoritarian tendencies which Fraser (2008: 140) asserts are a characteristic feature of democratic societies.

The analysis indicates that the assertion by power holders of the primacy of a commodified and decontextualised form of scientific knowledge as the basis for risk definition within the current development paradigm represents a significant

12

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) involves the globalisation of intellectual property laws, and extends patent protection to modified genes (Weis, 2007: 138).

threat to the ability of cultivators to assert discourses of risk. It also highlights the significant potential for ‘epistemic injustice’ described by the British philosopher, Miranda Fricker (2007), where social actors are denied in their ‘capacity

as…knower[s]’ (ibid.: 20) [italics in the original].

This raises significant concerns for epistemology itself given its potential reduction to a ‘scientism [which] means that we no longer understand science as one form of possible knowledge but rather identify knowledge with science’ (Roderick, 1986: 50). This thesis asserts that this potential for a reductionist simplification of knowledge construction at a time when humanity is seeking to address an epistemic gap characterised by its complexity represents a profound threat to the ontological survival of humanity.

The study argues, however, that the attempts to institutionalise the illegitimate exercise of power which would give rise to such reductionist knowledge construction are strongly contested. The potential for exclusion of the discourse of risk articulated by cultivators is, it is argued, alleviated somewhat by the activism of English-speaking scientists from NGOs and the Communist Party (Marxist) in opposition. These actors assert the need for knowledge construction which incorporates the perspectives of cultivators as a concern for the legitimation of risk in context.

This analysis highlights the way in which micro level mass mobilisations bolster the negotiating power of NGOs and secure the recognition of their perspectives. Through their co-ordination of these mobilisations, NGOs ensure that the core is obliged to remain open to the discourse of risk on the periphery. This supports the view of Strydom (2002: 109) that, ‘there are different types of power’ and that those who ‘attack dominant meanings are by no means powerless’ (ibid.). This thesis argues that the activity of NGOs enhances the legitimacy of democratic praxis itself. This is also highlighted by Haunss (2007: 161) who asserts that ‘while challenging the legitimacy of their opponents, [NGOs] may, at the same time, strengthen the legitimacy of the system as a whole.’

Given that all participants at the meso level of this study are scientists, the conflict relates to the normative conceptualisation of development which should inform the knowledge construction associated with science. Thus, the analysis highlights that, within the conflict concerning knowledge construction, values remain central. Here, the NGO and the CPM actors assert that scientific knowledge must incorporate local experiential knowledge as a concern for epistemic justice, and as part of the transformation of scientific knowledge itself. The analysis indicates, however, such a transformation is itself dependant upon the struggle to legitimate democracy within local contexts.

The analysis also highlights the legitimation trap in which the Andhra Pradesh government is caught. This is due to its need to secure economic growth in response

to the aspirations of its citizens, many of whom are classified as poor, while simultaneously being obliged to protect its citizens from risk, and to maintain law and order in the case of protests which entail civil disobedience. The significance of the ongoing differentiation of risk exposure in Andhra Pradesh, and the protests associated with its legitimation, means that the globalised form of development associated with neo-liberal policies must be tempered with government initiatives which seek to address this differentiated exposure to risk in context. This is also noted by Habermas ([1973], 1976: 54) who argues that the ‘[s]tate [must] compensate…for dysfunctional consequences of the accumulation process’ associated with capitalism.

Given India’s historic reliance on development aid from external powers, and the consequences of this on its autonomy to take decisions on its own development, there is also a marked concern with self-sufficiency at the meso level. It is recognised that globalised trade is currently enhancing India’s positioning globally, and has mitigated India’s reliance on foreign aid. However, globalisation also entails negotiation with global power structures in ways which threaten autonomy, and inhibit the ability of the government to respond to the legitimation demands of its own citizens. Here, the analysis explores the way in which the state is conflicted by competing threats to its own legitimacy.

It is noted that, according to the Democracy Index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, India is classified as one among fifty ‘flawed democracies’ in the

world (Deccan Chronicle, 5/1/2011). It is also recognised, however, that Indian democracy is ‘deeply paradoxical’ (Chandhoke and Priyadarshi, 2009: ix). This thesis asserts that the chaotic radicalisation of citizens in Andhra Pradesh, and the non-institutionalised ‘[p]arliament of the streets’ (Lummis, 1996: 142), ensure that power is contested within a democratic praxis which also has strong authoritarian tendencies. The analysis highlights that this radicalisation, turbulent as it is, contributes to the glimpses of legitimacy with which democratic praxis in Andhra Pradesh is characterised.