ABSTRACT
Introduction Tanzi (2011: 1) quoted the renowned Russian philosopher Nikolai A. Berdyaev as having said that “The government exists not for turning life on earth into a paradise but for preventing it from turning into a complete hell”. The use of metaphors of paradise and hell is obviously due to Berdyaev’s deep belief in Christianity, but it seems somewhat incongruous that such a celebrated philosopher and apparently a committed Christian would settle for an outcome that is hellish, albeit less than a ‘complete hell’. The relationship between government’s actions and how they affect life on earth is subsumed today under the heading of ‘economic and social policies’. Life on earth can be less than a ‘complete hell’ when humans suffer the ills of poverty and deprivation as a result of these policies. Berdyaev’s suggestions would imply that, if all the government can do is prevent life on earth ‘from turning into a complete hell’, then people should just accept that and not expect more.1 This is problematic particularly when we know that Berdyaev was a prominent writer within the existentialist movement, which considers that human beings create their own existence by choosing the particular meaning they want to give to their lives.
