Between the ‘in the name of the poor’ ideology and populism, give me political opportunism any day.
When economists are foxed, they resort to a well-known defence: everything depends on everything else, so one cannot identify what caused what; hence, one has an identification problem. What has plagued economists worries political scientists now, as they try and decipher the political goings-on at 10 Janpath and the Congress party.
Under the leadership of Ms Sonia Gandhi, the UPA government has undertaken several political initiatives. Some quickly come to mind: the extra-constitutional Bihar bungle where a UPA governor, Mr Buta Singh, disallowed a constitutionally held election; the extra-legal freeing up of frozen funds of a friend of the Congress party, Mr Quattorochi; the extra-international law violation by the Congress party and its foreign minister, Mr Natwar Singh, as alleged by the UN-sponsored Mr Volcker’s report on the food for oil scam; the near extra-constitutional (?) introduction of an Ordinance to “pardon” Ms Sonia Gandhi (and several members of Parliament) in the office-for-profit imbroglio.
None of these initiatives was pleasant, and in terms of numbers, they far exceed, especially given the short period of two years, anything that a non-Congress government has ever done, at the Centre or in the states. The identification problem here: several. First, did Ms Gandhi know about these activities? If not, why? How can she be the pre-eminent leader of the oldest political party in India, a party not known for inner democracy, and not know of the major political acts of her government? If she did know, can we presume that she agreed? And if she did agree, did she authorise these acts undertaken by her government? Greater chance of pigs flying than ….
There are two major social engineering initiatives of the UPA government: guaranteed employment for the poor and the downtrodden, and the expansion of quotas to the poor and the backward. The first is proudly claimed (by both Ms Gandhi and the UPA) to be the “flagship” of the soul of this government. No identification problem here. Though it should be noted that at the time of introduction of the law in December 2004, the UPA government had just published the result that employment growth in India (under the NDA rule) between 2000 and 2003 had been a very high 2.9 per cent per annum; and almost triple the anemic employment growth rate experienced between 1993 and 1999. In 2003, the unemployment rate was also among the lowest ever recorded in India. But the Sonia Gandhi-led UPA felt compelled to introduce this “much-needed” Act to help the “poor”, even though there really wasn’t any economic need. So there is an identification problem after all: Was the Act introduced for social justice, or to increase corruption and benefit the not so poor?
Also worth noting is that versions of the employment guarantee scheme have been in existence since 1972; so there have been nearly ten governments that could have introduced this populist law in Parliament and have been assured that it would pass, and that they would get political credit for it. Can you imagine Indian politicians voting against populism, let alone responsible lawmakers? But no government did; that took leadership.
Just recently, Sonia Gandhi’s minister for education, Mr Arjun Singh, proudly announced that higher education quotas would now be extended to the backward castes (not necessarily the backward classes). This, possibly extra-constitutional policy, came as a shock to many, including ministers in the UPA government. Since the partial implementation of the Mandal Commission report in 1990, there have been four governments that could have extended Mandal but refused to do so. Again, they would have got Parliament to agree. But they didn’t. Possibly because they did not want to sacrifice long-term national interests for highly uncertain short-term political gains.
The key question, of course, is where Ms Gandhi stands on Mandalisation. Is her stand based on ideology or opportunism? Several state elections are happening: identification problem—social justice or crass politics? Ideology or votes? The co-incidence of political populism and elections suggests that it is good old-fashioned Congress politics win at any cost. I disagree—I believe it is ideology.
Ms Gandhi openly admits to admiring the style and politics of Mrs Indira Gandhi—and the senior Mrs G was the classic leftist ideologue. It is worth recalling that the Communist Party of India supported Mrs G in the imposition of the Emergency just like they would have gone along a few weeks back on the office of profit Ordinance. The senior Mrs G invented populism—how different are Garibi hatao slogans from employment guarantee schemes or education quotas? Ironically, and somewhat surprisingly, what Rajiv Gandhi said in 1989 amounted to lambasting both the poverty schemes of his mother (by asserting that only 15 per cent of garibi hatao schemes ever reached the poor) and the quota schemes of his wife (in 2006). In 1990, he strongly objected to the implementation of the Mandal announcement, even in its then limited form.
So we are left with zero identification problems. If there is disagreement and tension within the Congress party, the fights should be seen as those between the senior-most leader Ms Gandhi and her leftist followers, and the liberal, progressive, and modern elements. Given her pre-eminent position, Mrs Sonia Gandhi is likely to win her battles—which is why I would much rather have preferred that she was acting out of crass opportunism. That can be defeated. Alas, ideology is a lot more dangerous, and destructive for the economy and the polity. Remember Mrs Indira Gandhi.
There is a near universal belief that the anger over Jessica Lall’s injustice will soon dissipate and that we will soon revert to “business as usual”. There are solid reasons for this cynical pessimism – the Indian judicial landscape is littered with backlogs, acquittals, and excuses. So why should this time be any different? It is, and I would like to document why. This time it is different due to two major reasons, due to not one but two tipping points. First, the size of the middle class has crossed a major threshold level. Second, the Jessica Lal murder, and the acquittal, was so extreme that it has pushed the middle class to shout out aloud “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore”.
What are the goals of affirmative action policies in India, particularly in education? The question should ideally be “what should be…” but should is not part of the vocabulary of the Indian politician, who has always deemed the constitution as putty, to be converted into clay at a “political” moment’s notice. First and foremost, the stated goal of affirmative action is for the state to provide equal opportunities to all citizens. And since education is the major asset of most individuals, state support is needed to provide the opportunity for education.
There are some things I would like to understand, but am unable to. Ms. Sonia Gandhi recently resigned from her parliament seat amid much acclaim and felicitations for her “sacrifice”. But it was just yesterday when her government was planning to bring in an ordinance at the midnight hour (tried quite successfully by her mother-in-law, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, when she imposed the Emergency some thirty years ago) just to protect her from her “sacrifice”. Having resigned, she claims to have been a victim of unfair practices of the opposition! Now you see why I find it difficult to understand these exciting times.
It seems that some people just refuse to get it – that what worked in the early 20th century against the British is unlikely to be applicable a 100 years later. There is a terrorist attack in a temple in Varanasi, and Islamic terrorists are the major suspects. This attack was preceded by India voting against Iran on the nuclear issue, and India signing a nuclear agreement with the US. There are some politicians who link the vote against Iran as part of an anti-Muslim sentiment in the UPA government. There are politicians within the UPA who feel that they have to appease Muslims as “compensation”! That this is far beyond the realm of any logic is not the issue; it is a fact that some politicians think that by making religious noise, they will curry favor and attract votes. Just the same logic was used by a Muslim UP politician who issued a fatwa against the editor of a Danish newspaper for publishing religious cartoons. Why he should not be arrested for incitement to murder is a question few politicians want to deal with.
I have long been a believer in the economic determinants of voting in India i.e. people vote with their minds, and vote for performance. But being an empirical junkie, there seem to be so many exceptions to this rule, that I have started to reluctantly believe in the theorem that performance is definitely not one of the determinants. Electoral success has many fathers, and we may find it difficult to ascertain the contribution of each. But we can definitely rule out the contribution of performance. This theorem applies only to incomparable India; in western democracies, it is likely that economic performance matters a lot.
When asked about his government’s record on reforms, Mr. Chidambaram, somewhat innocently but perhaps disingenuously asks, “If reforms have slowed down, how are we registering high growth?” Interpretation: It is the great leadership of the Congress party that has allowed economic growth last year to be 6.9 percent, and this year to be near 7 percent; that has allowed the Sensex to be higher, and Indians to be richer, and for India to have a woman tennis player in the top 40. One might also add, according to Mr. C’s logic, that if my temperature is normal today, I will stay well tomorrow.
The first year of Congress party rule has ended, and most analysts have given it a thumbs down. The coalition that Congress runs is composed of the left, the confused, and the moral. But more problems reside within the Congress – especially via the anti-reform and anti-sense policies advocated by the Congress left. Thus, very few people bought the story that the PM, Mr. Manmohan Singh, had not been a reformer because he had been constrained by coalition politics.
In an article entitled “Loot for Work Programme”, (Times of India, July 2, 2005) National Economic Council member and prime designer of the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) Jean Dreze reports on a survey of how such schemes have worked during the last year. This survey covered six districts in six states. “The picture emerging from this survey is alarming”, Mr. Dreze boldly and candidly states; corruption is rampant. “The national food for work programme (NFFWP) clearly states that the muster rolls should be available for public scrutiny. This is very important since fudging of muster rolls is the principal method through which funds are siphoned off from public employment programmes” (emphasis added).
The year started with great expectations. Manmohan Singh, reformist former Finance Minister, intellectual, immensely decent and superbly honest, accidentally became India’s Prime Minister. It wasn’t an accident to some; I had forecast as early as 1998 that the developing world was wanting technocrats as Prime Ministers, not conventional politicians, and that hence Manmohan Singh was the ideal candidate to be India’s next PM!(Business Standard, May 14 , 2005)
