governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Liberalisation’

#Gender & #sexuality norms #India 2018

LGBT 2

In Britain, “buggery” between consenting adults became legal in 1967. Let me hasten to assure that I use the crude term “buggery” not to mock the LGBT community. This is the physical act, defined by its antiseptic moniker “voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, which was excised from Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court last week (Navtej Singh Johar case). Fali Nariman had argued in the Suresh Kumar Kaushal case. 2009 that the term used in the IPC was so vague that it could be interpreted to include all sexual acts which were for pleasure alone and not aimed at procreation – including fellatio, use of a condom by a hetrosexual couple and use of an artificial device by two women. All of them, per Mr Nariman, could be prosecuted. Luckily now that  transgress into privacy has ended.

The court tagged the right to choose one’s gender and sexual preferences to the expansive fundamental rights vested in our Constitution, which encourage every individual to express themselves, form like-minded communities and live enriched, free lives, albeit with reasonable restrictions.

Incremental inclusion of LGBT over a decade

Events have been moving in this direction for nearly a decade. In 2009, the Election Commission of India, under CEC Navin Chawla, encouraged voters to voluntarily register their gender as “other” rather than male or female, if it described them better. This revolutionary move was balm for the transgender community, traditionally called “hijra”, which were outlawed in the colonial period and exists today as society’s underbelly. It is easy to exclude a community legally but much tougher to excise it from social memory. Rare is the Indian parent who would risk not getting newborn children or newly-married couples blessed by hijras.

Anjali LGBT crusader

On July 2, 2009, the Delhi High Court made history by allowing the petition of Naz Foundation. It held that Section 377 of the IPC was unconstitutional. The 2011 census followed and recorded 0.5 million transgender people on a self-declaration basis.

The next milestone was the April 2013 judgment by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (National Legal Services Authority case) which recognised “transgenders” as a minority identity. It was the first step towards fuller state inclusion for benefits and protection. Unfortunately, the bill for enabling such rights has been under consideration since 2014 in Parliament.

Meanwhile, strongly influenced by the international narrative to actively protect individual privacy against the State or private predators, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on August 24, 2017 (Puttaswamy case) ruled that individual privacy was a part of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. Using privacy as an entry point, the court also ruled that the law must not be normative on what consenting adults could do in private.

Why is the judiciary being implicitly used to make law?

Given this progressive trend, the decriminalization of Section 377 was a logical conclusion. But the lay person could well ask why adopt a tortuous, disjointed judicial process for what have been comprehensively dealt by a proactive legislation recognising first, that gender diversity is a reality and second, sexuality is a mutual choice not limited by laws or morality.

The answer is yes, these issues should be debated comprehensively and legislated on by Parliament. The judiciary has no original legislative power. It makes or unmakes law only as a default option on a petition for judicial review of whether or not a law is aligned with the basic framework of our Constitution (Keshwanand Bharati case 1973).

Electoral compulsions erode a consensus, within Parliament, on social reform with electoral gains are meagre

To be fair to Parliament, it reflects what citizens feel, think and expect. The tyranny of democracy is that it binds us to where we exist today, not where we might want to be a half century hence. History has also not helped. Rule by the Mughals, followed by the British Raj, had stymied organic social development. Alternative sexuality was hardly an issue in Ancient India. As evidence, one needs go no further than Section 282 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines “obscenity” as anything “lascivious”, appealing to “prurient interest” or which may “corrupt” or “deprave” persons and prescribes punishments for such acts or objects.

The exception to this section is revealing. Ancient monuments, their sculptures and art are exempted from prosecution under obscenity laws as are any sculptures or art meant for religious purposes. Our ancient culture and religion predates the puritanical social norms of the eighth century AD in Arabia and eighteenth century AD in Europe, which were internationalised through conquest.

Western civilisation turned the corner on including LGBT a half century ago

Europe

We are stuck in a past which is not our own. A past abandoned, even in Europe, from where we partially assimilated our prudish present. A survey by daliaresearch.com shows that six per cent Europeans identify themselves as being Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT). Those between 25 to 35 years are four times as likely to claim an alternative gender as compared to those above 60 years. Gender and sexual diversity is the future. But State support is crucial. In the UK, same-sex marriage is legal. But 20 per cent of LGBT have battled hate speech or worse from social conservatives.

Generating data on LGBT can improve their access to public services & make their electoral weight visible

If the European share of LGBT to total population is applied to India, we would have 70 million LGBT people. They may very well exist and if united would be a bigger vote bank than all our minorities other than the Muslims. But fear and oppression keep them in the closet. Changing the pattern of acceptable social behaviour is a long, hard struggle. Lofty judicial pronouncements change behaviour only when embedded, by law, into the lives of real people who study, marry, have or adopt children, work productively and raise families securely. This is a long haul given the current parliamentary passivity on this subject.

IIT Delhi geeks are at the frontier of change

It is endearing that 20 geeks from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, an institution of eminence, are at the frontier of change. They challenged the regressive Supreme Court’s two-judge decision of December 11, 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal case), which had overturned the Delhi high court decision ruling that Section 377 was unconstitutional on the narrow ground that unproven harm to a small minority was not significant enough to warrant judicial intervention to curtail the legislative privilege of Parliament.

Three emerging institutional trends

The decision in the Navtej Singh Johar case last week illustrates three important trends. First, institutional collapse is not imminent in the higher judiciary. This is good news since they will have to lead social change in the face of parliamentary passivity.

Second, the Court, by coming out strongly against majoritarianism, has stirred up the political pot. This will continue to boil during the upcoming elections.

Third, failure of governance continue. Much can be done by executive action and in judicial review sanctified by the courts. Why cannot the government simply change the provision for survivor pensions for a “spouse” to “partner” as a one-time choice to be made by the pensioner? Similar changes in the definition of “family” for health insurance or social benefits can embed sexual and gender diversity deeply. Aadhaar was driven by executive zeal, and so can social reform.

Adapted from the authors Opinion Piece in The Asian Age, September 10, 2018 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/100918/377-need-a-real-change-in-state-society-norms.html

Sustaining growth in an unfriendly world

unfriendly

Put it down to the heavy snow in Davos or to a rare case of blunt honesty by an international agency. Whilst sharing the good news of the revival of the world economy in 2017 and its expected continued growth till 2019 at 3.9 percent, Christine Laggard – the IMF Managing Director, cautioned that 20 percent of the developing world was not part of that revival, tempering the WEF celebrations with sobriety. Latin America and resource dependent economies, had suffered negative growth, even in 2016.

India’s growth angst

India’s angst is real with growth dropping to 6.5%, versus the 7% plus real growth of recent years. We are new to this business of high growth. The two decades from 1980 to 2000 only had a growth rate of 5.7 percent per year. It is only post 2000 that a growth rate of 7 percent per year become part of our expectations. In comparison, China’s high growth period of 8 plus percent per year – with minor annual deviations – began in 1977 and continued for over three decades till 2011.

Trade liberalisation and world growth – China timed it right

The 1970s and 1980s were a good time to grow. Under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) the Kennedy, Tokyo and Uruguay rounds of negotiations (1963 to 1993) reduced average tariffs from 22 percent to 5 percent. World exports as a share of world GDP increased by 40% between 1972 to 1982 (from a level of 14% of world GDP to 19%). Over the next two decades, till 2002, world exports further increased by nearly one third to a level of 25% of world GDP. The bulk of Chinese growth happened during this period of trade liberalization.

India – a growth laggard, got the timing wrong

India lost the favourable two decades from 1962 to 1982 to domestic political headwinds. We liberalized, tentatively, from 1985. But reform put down roots only from 1992. By then world growth had tapered off. During the quarter century after 1992 till 2016, only in four years, did the world grow at 4% per year or more. In the quarter century before 1992 there were 14 years when growth exceeded 4% per year with 1964 being the high point at 6.7%. India has struggled against the declining trend in world growth to pull itself up. Fresh challenges can be expected over the next decade.

Can India replace the broken “open economy” model

The world grew rapidly using the “open economy” model over fifty years till 2008. Is it now broken? And did rising inequality within economies kill it? And are we now left only with the long, dark alley of “directed Chinese capitalism”, as a viable “growth model”?

Yes it can, if only we collected more tax revenues

India can offer an alternative model aligned with the “open economy, freedom, democracy” matrix, if we can boost our tax to GDP ratio to generate the resources required for “sharing growth”. The combined revenue receipts, in India, of governments at all levels is 22% of GDP.

Meanwhile public outlays are critically short in health by 4 % of GDP; education by 3% of GDP; infrastructure by 3% of GDP and defence by 2% of GDP. This adds up to 12% of GDP.

Around one third of the additional fiscal resources could come from continuing to grow at 6% per year – an achievable target. Another one third could be met from non-tax receipts like from privatization and savings on pro-poor subsidies by targeting and distributing them better, including digitally. But we cannot escape increasing our tax to GDP ratio (all of government) to 26 % of GDP.

The broad anti-corruption framework offers hope

The drive against corruption; stricter adoption of banked transaction norms and the increasing popularity of digital transactions and online marketing are expected to ensure that tax collection in fiscal 2018 meets the budgetary targets of Rs 19 trillion (including state share of Rs 6.7 trillion).

This is despite a reduction in the budgeted nominal growth of GDP over last year from 11.8% to 9.5%. This buoyancy gives hope that continued rationalization of tax rates; improved assessment and review processes and fairer and faster settlement of tax cases will induce better tax compliance.

Specific incentives for officials can seed growth filters in local decision making

We should learn from China how to devise local incentives for enhancing revenues. 99% of the 50 million Chinese officials are locally recruited and are never transferred away. They are truly a “permanent” bureaucracy.

Secondly, a significant part of their pay is linked to the fiscal health of their local unit. A healthy unit means higher bonuses and benefits for employees. Fiscal downturns bring austerity even in the take home benefits for employees. This close and sustained identification of officials with local offices and the localities where they exist, creates a shared bond between citizens and the officials – all of whom sink or swim, together.

Recruit officials locally & keep them there, for better identification with local needs

In India, officials are birds of passage, even at the village level. Their take home pay and benefits are completely unlinked to the fiscal health of the local office or the locality they serve in. It is no surprise then that rent gouging is widely prevalent with no concern for making the locality or the employing organization fiscally healthy.

“Authoritarian” China is effectively more decentralised than “democratic” India

The Chinese government does not habitually, bail out bankrupt local governments. They must work themselves out of the holes they dig for themselves. At the same time, the government does not hesitate to formally allow policy departures, at the local level, driven by exigency. Ironically, this makes “authoritarian” China, extremely decentralized and participative, whilst India – part of the “free world”, looks hopelessly rigid and centralized in general. We must build up the bright exceptions.

PARAM IYER

 

No job is too dirty for me

Parameswaran Iyer, Secretary, Government of India, a sanitation specialist, recruited from the World Bank,  walks the talk, by demonstrating that composted pit latrines are no longer dirty. Commitment to field level results and competence in action.

 

Resilience to overcome future challenges comes from open-order economies, promoting innovation and flexible structures

The WEF has cautioned that the near-term future is full of security, climate, technology and economic risks. They advise that resilience is the best antidote to risk. For complex organisations, enhancing resilience means embedding flexible, modular structures and business relationships, which allow the freedom to alter the scale of operations to fit demand and to cultivate innovation and the capacity to work at “the edge” of the frontier. Tellingly, none of this is aligned with a heavy top down, centralized, cookie-cutter, approach. Change is upon us. We must bend lest we break.

Adapted from the the author’s opinion piece in TOI blogs, January 28, 2018 https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinion-india/sustaining-growth-in-an-unfriendly-world/

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: