No taxation without representation

Democratic, liberal, post-industrial capitalist nations function on the basis that a state is the ultimate arbiter for its subjects. Ultimately, the glue that binds the stat and its subjects together is the principle of taxation. People are willing to engage in a system of taxation in all its forms if it fulfills the goals of a civil society. The checks and balances that are in place in most of these societies are in place primarily to ensure that people are getting their monies worth. The capitalist ideals built into the liberal democratic model means that a state acts as a provider/client and the public are its customers with the social contract being underpinned by the taxation system.

The mechanics of this machine are impressive. The ways in which tax is procured by the state in all its forms is extraordinary. The institutional structures that tower over the public function efficiently. The problems arise when fractures appear in the body politic and these fissures affect the system. In the USA for example, there are more black males residing in the prison industrial complex than there are in the further/higher education colleges. These individuals are more likely to serve a longer sentence than their peers from other social groups. These men when they leave prison are then denied their right to vote in any election. African-Americans are statistically at a socio-economic disadvantage to their counterparts in the USA. There is an estimated 40 million African-Americans residing in the USA, which is largely seen as the beacon shining down upon the earth and an example to all nations. Inherent in its system however is a fundamental flaw; the benefit for the few comes at a huge cost to the many.

An estimated 100 million, that is 1 in 3 people, in the USA do not have adequate health care coverage. The implications of this damning statistic for the lives of those people is massive. Yet there is still a debate about the nature of free [at the point of service] health care for all of its citizens. The health care system in the USA is a booming industry, it accounts for 15% of its GDP. Their lobbyists spend millions of dollars to ensure that members of the House and the Senate refrain from engaging in such futile matters as a 'free for all' health care system. To put it quite frankly, a lot of money is generated from the sick in developed nations. If this changes, it threatens the profit margins of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. These are the sad facts of the current system we live in; the hypocrisy of democracy.

Current debates in the USA have huge implications for the rest of the world. Particularly when it comes to debates about the provision of medicines to under-developed nations. That is that pharmaceutical countries have always opposed Brazil, India and their ilk regarding their position on patent obligations as members of the World Trade Organisation. Brazil et al deemed that for reasons of national security, the welfare of their subjects, they would produce copies of AIDS medicines and sell them at a cheaper price than the current market alternatives. This was challenged by the giants of the pharmaceutical industry in the guise of the developed nations, chief of whom was the USA. Under the cloak of investment in R&D, the pharmaceutical industry argued that their more expensively produced goods should be protected in line with their interpretation of intellectual property rights. However, Brazil et al circumvented the system and acted independently; challenging the status quo and exposing the fragility of the current global trade system. African nations have been slow to follow in this respect as they appear to be in no position to either challenge the status quo or possess the capability to produce vast quantities of pharmaceutical materials. Instead they choose to lobby for the pharmaceutical industry to lower their prices knowing full well that the balance sheet is the main determinant for their activities.

For Somalis to succeed in general they must try to address this situation: that there is no taxation without representation. At the moment, they risk aping the situation that other minority communities in developed nations face. The African American community in the USA is a classic example of how integration has totally failed to engender equality. Let alone allow for progressive interpretations of social justice. Somalis and others at present in the UK risk being chopped by the double-edged sword that hangs over their heads waiting to fall. If continually members of the community are statistically over-represented in the criminal justice system and mental health facilities and under-represented in acheiving high levels of educational attainment and employment then something is wrong. It is not the responsibility of the indidvidual in this case to change, if so many people are being isolated and excluded then it is the responsibility for society to change. Until then, the mantra holds true NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.