governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘cabinet’

Saffron India

Image

The saffron deluge has taken everyone by surprise, like an early monsoon. The Modi storm carried away with it, anyone who rode with him and demolished all others, barring regional stalwarts like Amma, Naveen Patnaik and Didi.

Is this the end of caste as a political weapon? With Bhenji (Dalit supremo), Netaji (Ahir supremo-UP), Lallu (Ahir supremo-Bihar), Ajit Singh (Jat supremo-UP) all biting the dust and even Haryana going saffron, are voters taking caste out of national politics? Could this be stretched to say saffron can make the country less divisive- top downwards? Is there a hope that the next step could be to take caste out of state level politics? Well that clearly is Modi’s dream. But there are limits to Hindu integration and virtues in dissonance.

The democratic problem with an overwhelming mandate is that it reduces the opposition to a redundancy. In the extant case, saffron still has to contend with the Rajya Sabha where the NDA does not have a majority. More importantly, the recent Indian experience with huge majority governments has not been conducive for reforms. Of course coalitions are not a panacea for reforms either. The United Front coalitions of 1996 to 1998 were superbly ineffective. But the Janta Party wasted its massive 1977 win and Rajiv Gandhi frittered away the overwhelming sympathy vote in 1984. In comparison, significant economic reform happened only under the Narasimha Rao led coalition government in 1991; the Vajpayee led NDA government of 2000 and the Manmohan Singh led UPA I of 2004. There does seem to be a positive link between coalitions and economic reform. Possibly huge majorities induce comfort. The lack of competition douses the fire in the belly till ones time is up and it is too late.

Modi is not unused to huge mandates. After all he has led Gujarat for over ten years now. But it would be wise to pursue the idea of a “cabinet” of Chief Ministers and to engage proactively with the opposition. The last few years have seen rising inter-party acrimony making Parliament dysfunctional. To keep engaging, when not compelled to do so, is the best route to rebuild a national consensus on development priorities.

Modi is a man in a hurry, with an agenda to complete and too little time to do it in. It is consequently unlikely that he will let the baton slip. He would do well to use the UK-Tony Blair and Malaysia precedent and constitute small, vertically integrated, fully empowered, politico-technocratic teams with specific, measurable and time bound results expected from them. His secretariat is unlikely to be the laid back, free-wheeling entity it had become under Manmohan Singh, which reported to everyone but the PM. The expectation is that Modi will come to office with a pre-formulated agenda and a team to implement it doggedly.

Is the hoary city of Delhi likely to seduce him into somnolence? Again, very unlikely, given the cultural gulf tween the macho man from Mehsana and the pleasures on offer from the glitterati of Lutyens. His “quasi married” status is likely to generate many hours of speculation of who, if anyone, is likely to share 7 RCR with him.

The world will be waiting however, for any slip up on his management of the Muslim community. Whilst Modi seeks to treat all Indians the same and goes out of his way to say so, the fact is that to reverse the “selective appeasement” of the past will take time and fiscal space. Neither is available to him. This is where proxies and symbols can help to reassure minorities that he is their protector too. One important symbol will be his choice of the Home Minister, who whilst enjoying the full confidence of the PM, must be trusted by all segments of India.

Theorists will make much of the need for Modi to build or re-build institutions. This is very time consuming and effort intensive. Many of these (cabinet system; inner party democracy; the bureaucracy; federalism; the judiciary) were systematically destroyed during the long period of Indira Gandhi’s rule. Institutions do matter, particularly in a democracy, because they provide permanence in a politically unstable system. But in India we carry everything to extremes. No institution can atrophy and yet remain productive.

The central bureaucracy is one such institution. From the very beginning, it was merit oriented only at the point of entry. Even in that limited way, it did not respond to the socio-economic disabilities specific segments of India faced in getting in. This opaque, small, mostly male club can be transformed by introducing real competition at the top. This is from where the fish rots. All babu posts of Joint Secretary and above must be filled through open competition. It must be the PM (not the concerned Minister or the Department of Personnel) who must select the candidate, out of a short list of two, recommended by the UPSC. Each appointment must have a minimum tenure of three years with no job hopping allowed, even if more attractive lateral options become available.  

One new tradition, which must be reversed, is the “in your face” security apparatus. Modi was the highest security risk even before he became the PM. Now his security needs to significantly enhanced. But this challenge should be used as an opportunity to upgrade the security apparatus, rely on technology, intelligence and rapid response, rather than on a glut of gun totting men. It is only when the PM makes his security “invisible” that it will stop being the status symbol, it is today.

It will not be easy to rein in “privilege”, which is the life blood of an elitist, patrimonial State. But much of the rot we face today can be traced to this one, ubiquitous norm. Who better to try, than one who, like Bill Clinton, made it to the very top purely on merit?

Hypocritical India

 

Image

Indians are affably argumentative (Amartya Sen, 2005). Less likably, the Indian State is intensely hypocritical. It remains very medieval despite its veneer of modernism.

Examples of medievalism abound. We value Indian lives very low. No minister has ever resigned because citizens, in their charge, starved to death or died due to lack of emergency medical aid or if large numbers of students fail to pass in public schools. Corruption is a leitmotif of even the simplest public transaction like lodging a First Information Report at a police station (this is something which should even be possible by email or sms or whatsapp); avoiding getting arrested for drunk driving; getting a copy of case records from the lower courts or seeking protection from physical harassment and assault.

The best illustration of lingering medievalism and nascent modernism is the conscious use of hypocrisy by the State, to keep alive the hope of change without disturbing the status quo. There are many such State hypocrisies but five major ones stand out.

The biggest hypocrisy is the Constitutional provision that religion does not matter for State policy formulation and execution. Everything points to a different truth. The Shah Bano episode (1986) is the best example of how religion and politics have been inseparable. In this case the Supreme Court granted maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman (as is the right of any Indian woman) but the government rescinded this progressive judgment through a perverse, new law to appease orthodox Muslim sentiment. Meanwhile, to placate orthodox Hindu sentiment, which was being fanned by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (a Hindu rights outfit), it also opened the gates of the disputed site of the Babri Masjid which had been locked by the government since 1885 to preserve the status quo on counter claims to possession rights by Muslims and Hindus. Incidentally 1885 is also the year the Indian National Congress was founded. By 1986 (a century later) the Congress was not averse to play the communal card with an eye to the 1989 elections.

Other more visible “red flags” of regressive religious politics are the low pan-Indian representation of Muslims in government; the increasing ghettoization of Muslims even in new urban areas; blatantly pro-Muslim or Hindu political parties and decreasing levels of productive social interaction between the two major communities since 1947. Let’s face it. The religious cleavage exists in an antagonistic form and is increasing. It is only once we accept this that we can get to talk about how to bridge it.

The second big hypocrisy is that all Indians are created equal. Democracy and the positive affirmation (reservations) policy have solidified caste much more than the dilution effect from urbanization. If Pandit Nehru saw Sardar Patel as a biased Hindu he would be shocked at the manner in which political leaders today pander to narrow interests of backward caste and Dalit vote banks. After religion, caste is the next most significant political identity of Indians. The majority of Indians wed within their caste and vote for caste candidates. Indians are not born equal. They struggle to overcome the inherited, rigid social and economic barriers of caste and very few succeed, despite the Constitution and a range of laws prohibiting caste based biases.

The third big hypocrisy (which we share with much of the World) is that women are treated equal to men. They are not and never have been. The good news here is that since this is an international problem, the state of play is fairly advanced. Policy, law and programs are working to empower women economically in the hope that social change will follow; to measure their levels of satisfaction; to assess results and to provide special protection to them in the transition period.

The fourth big hypocrisy is that poverty is reducing at a satisfactory rate. This is far from true. Even worse, asserting this statistically, as the government does, lulls us into believing that following the current path and simply doing more of what we do already, will get us to a poverty free India. It cannot.

Average per capita income needs to triple in real terms and inequality to reduce significantly before we can even claim to have found the correct direction. Some measurable indicators are a consistent growth above 8% per year; a more equal sharing between the rich and 70% of the rest, of the benefits of incremental growth (we don’t monitor this periodically) and the rate of job creation in the formal economy.

The fifth hypocrisy is that the existing governance architecture of Parliamentary Democracy is suitable for India. It is not. Both Parliament and Cabinet have ceased to play their intended role as checks on personal aggrandizement and protecting minority interests. This has been true for State Governments over the last three decades but over the past decade even the GOI Cabinet has become the poodle of Party bosses. The sanctity and effectiveness of Parliament is eroded by the behavior of lumpen elements, more familiar with brute force than reasoned argument or moral persuasion. Corruption vitiates executive decision making to the extent that the judiciary becomes the aam admi’s “de-facto government” for seeking redress.

How can this familiar tale of woe be altered?

First what is not measured and recorded cannot be dealt with. Enumerate caste/tribe and religion in the census so we know the numbers; the spatial distribution and their wellbeing. Map caste and religion data on a publicly available GIS down to the village and urban ward level so that government interventions can be calibrated to local social norms and results assessed by third parties. Assess poverty levels bi-annually using mobile based rapid data collection instruments to better relate schemes (like the Right to Food or the Right to Work) to poverty reduction outcomes.

Second review the existing incentive structures for diluting religion, caste, gender inequality, poverty and improving the functioning of the executive, parliament and judiciary.

Caste based affirmative action (reservations) clearly perpetuates an “us versus them” psychology. Diluting it by adding poverty criterion, requires more data and monitoring, but can lead to the dominance of more modern pressure groups like professional affiliations (farmers, business owners, employees), locational interests (Biharis or Mumbaikars) or ideological solidarity (environmentalists, big or small government advocates, gay rights advocates).

All government programs and projects should be evaluated for their poverty reduction potential before approval by the government and income enhancement targets fixed. Achievement against targets must be monitored by third parties with the results made public. This will reduce pork (roads to nowhere) and gold plating (capital heavy projects which do nothing for jobs-why not let private business do these?).

The Constitution should be revised to completely separate the Executive from Parliament. The PM and her deputy to be directly elected with minimum vote shares prescribed in each constituency to ensure inclusion. The ministerial executive team to be nominated by the PM and endorsed by the Parliament. The internal emergency provisions should similarly require the endorsement of parliament to protect state government autonomy from an aggressive PM. The 2014 elections are being fought in any case on the basis of “US President like” identities.

This simple change can ensure that the PM is popularly elected and is not just a “shoo-in”. It can also  improve the quality of MPs by getting rid of those who contest for Parliament seats (often by paying for them) only as an avenue for eventually getting into lucrative executive positions. Legislative ability requires skills in law and social sciences apart from a feel for the local interests an MP represents. Executive ability requires specialization and narrow experience. The system must present separate choices to the electorate and to those desiring to enter politics.

The bottom line is to transit from being an affable but hypocritical India to a more results oriented and honest India. In the modern world time is money and the long route to poverty reduction whilst changing incrementally is costly. Social stability is a merit good in the Indian plural context. But the price for social stability must be paid by the rich and not the poor or the marginalized.   

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: