|
Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh increasingly sounds a disappointed
man these days. While he does often refer to the many
achievements of his term in office, as that term nears
its final year he periodically expresses his resentment
over not being able to go through with some of his most
favoured initiatives. Two areas in which this resentment
is particularly clear are economic policy and India's
international relations, especially its relations with
the United States. In the former, while Singh prides
himself on being the architect of India's ostensibly
successful neoliberal reforms, and of having pushed
the reform agenda way beyond the limits set by the previous
NDA government, he is displeased that he has had to
hold back when it comes to labour market reform, reform
of the pension system, privatization and liberalization
of foreign investment rules. In the realm of foreign
policy and international relations, he is annoyed that
he has not been able to push through a strategic partnership
with the US, epitomised by the nuclear deal.
Disappointments with agendas of change that are far
less ambitious are the norm in democracies, and the
successful politician is he who understands what to
push through and what to hold back on (and when and
how) so as not to appear defeated in the face of opposition
that cannot be won over. Such political knowledge and
acumen normally resides in those who have to win a mandate
for the party they lead, so that when in power they
are able to sense which of their policies would have
the support of the majority, and which can be implemented
even if with the support of only an articulate minority.
Prime Minister Singh is not really this kind of politician.
He came to politics late in his career, after a long
tenure as a bureaucrat and a short stint as an academic.
His entry into politics was lateral and not based on
apprenticeship as a political activist. He served as
a legislator not after victory in a direct election
(though he has fought one) but as a member indirectly
elected to the Upper House. He became Prime Minister
not because he was fronted as one in the election campaign
but because the person expected to lead the winning
party chose to step down and propose him as the alternative
candidate. And even after becoming Prime Minister he
preferred, when the opportunity arose, not to contest
direct elections to Parliament but to remain an indirectly
elected member of the Upper House.
A trajectory like this is bound to influence the person
who follows it. Among the possible effects are three
which can be speculatively advanced. First, it is unlikely
that a person with a track record of this nature would
see himself as a true "politician". Instead, some, like
himself, are repositories of knowledge that is "non-partisan",
almost technocratic and "correct", whereas politicians
are those who win the mandate to use that knowledge
and benefit from the legitimacy it brings. It follows
that if put in a position of political power it is unlikely
such a person would see politics both in and out of
power as the art of the possible. Rather, power is to
be used to implement what is "right". Second, it is
likely that a person of this kind sees his being in
office as recognition of his knowledge of what is best
for his constituency and his ability to deliver based
on that knowledge, so that his effort to deliver is
not hampered for purely "political" reasons. Third,
since there is only one correct set of policies, if
those policies favour a few, marginalize the majority
and aggravate inequality, or if such policies involve
a loss of national sovereignty, these are seen merely
as the price to be immediately paid to achieve developmental
or other goals, with their effects having to be redressed
now or later with other initiatives.
Unfortunately for those who hold such positions, societies
are divided and policies in most instances are explicitly
or implicitly partisan. If action is initiated based
on such beliefs within a democratic framework it is
likely to meet with opposition either straight away
or when its effects (in the form of subordination, unemployment,
inequality or poverty) become clear. What is more, with
greater emphasis on private initiative, international
integration and market-friendliness, the divide in society
has only grown, so that it becomes difficult for parties
to win elections based on a manifesto of the kind espoused
by the Prime Minister Singh. Even with a differently
framed manifesto (such as the National Common Minimum
Programme) it is difficult to win a mandate to rule
without entering into alliances with parties that may
have similar inclinations in some areas but very different
views in others.
Put simply, if democracy thrives, as it still does in
India, the circumstances needed to keep pushing policies
of the kind favoured by the current leadership would
soon weaken and even disappear. This is precisely what
has been happening in recent times, with growing opposition
from the Left which supports the government from outside
and a growing reluctance on the part of smaller allies
of the Congress and many Congressmen themselves to support
such policies.
This has meant that the ability of the Prime Minister
and his advisers to push through their policies has
been eroded. When the government persisted with its
ambitions, as in the case of the Indo-US nuclear deal,
its future was put at stake, necessitating a retreat.
What is surprising are the statements that have emanated
from the Prime Minister during this period. Initially,
faced with Left opposition to the nuclear deal, he seemed
to have been overcome by bravado, declaring that there
is no going back on the deal and that if the Left chose
to withdraw support, "so be it".
When the Left did not relent and the implications of
withdrawal of support sank in, all those who did not
want immediate elections, which included both the Congress
Party and its allies, prevailed on the Prime Minister,
who declared that if the nuclear deal did not go through
"that is not the end of life". But he was clear to emphasize
two things: that the Indo-US agreement was "an honourable
deal that is good for India and good for the world",
and differences over the deal arise only "in the realm
of politics". Put simply, politics is not about what
is right or wrong, but about partisan differences driven
by the game of power. Politicians can be on any side,
but the Prime Minister cannot.
This open declaration of a prejudice against democratic
politics has only intensified in recent times. On October
23, addressing a meeting of the board of the consulting
firm McKinsey, he said: "I don't think there is any
lack of thinking on what needs to be done to sustain
and further accelerate growth. There is also fairly
wide recognition of the importance of this agenda. However,
given the nature of competitive politics and the very
fractured mandates given to governments, it has become
difficult sometimes for us to do what is manifestly
obvious." Whatever the latter might mean, the Prime
Minister was trying to make the point that: there is
only one strategy that is correct, he knows what that
is and is attempting to implement it, and politics and
politicians are obstructing him. The problem, he seems
to think, is what others call democracy, which has given
neither him nor his party a clear mandate to do what
they want.
A few days later, on November 6, federalism itself was
brought into question. While delivering the inaugural
address at the 4th International Conference on Federalism,
Singh referred to a multi-party model, where parties
with varying national reach and many with a very limited
sub-national reach, form a coalition at the national
level, as is happening in India. "Is such a model capable
of providing the unity of purpose that nation-states
have to often demonstrate?", he is reported to have
asked. And in partial reply, he noted: : "Sometimes
the resolution of problems acquires an excessively political
hue, and narrow political considerations, based on regional
or sectional loyalties and ideologies, can distort the
national vision and sense of wider collective purpose."
So it is not just formal democracy that is a problem
but federalism as well, since it can tie the hands of
the enlightened central leader.
But that is not all. Turning from the question of federalism
to the relation between nation states, he is reported
to have said: "When I see the world getting increasingly
globalised, I wonder whether the day is not far away
when the concept of absolute sovereignty may itself
come into question." Statements like these are normally
the staple in social gatherings attended by an upper
crust of Indian society. Many of its members may be
educated but have, like much of the Indian media, almost
forgotten that a non-metropolitan and (more importantly)
rural India exists, and deserves to be noticed and have
a say as to where and how the country should go. But
such statements coming from the Prime Minister of the
country are indeed baffling. He is the leader of the
country and not just of its elite.
Interestingly, the evidence shows that the Prime Minister
is willing to change his views when it suits him. For
example, he now recognizes the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Programme as a flagship programme of his government
and claims all credit for it. However, at the time when
the programme was being mooted he is reported to have
told a delegation that met him to win his support that
nothing would come of such a programme, and it would
only be throwing money away with no long term results.
When and why his opinion changed remains a mystery.
Now, when the circumstances of democracy seem to limit
his ability to push ahead with whatever he thinks is
right, he seems less willing to change his views or
even put them on hold. Rather, he has begun to consider
much that independent India can be proud of and is enshrined
in her Constitution as a problem, an obstacle in the
way of progress as he sees it. Such an attitude among
leaders is not new in history. For example, at the time
of the 1953 uprising in East Germany against the Soviet-backed
government Brecht noted in his much quoted poem titled
The Solution that the Secretary of the Writers Union
had distributed pamphlets "Stating that the people/
Had forfeited the confidence of the government/And could
win it back only/By redoubled efforts." Brecht asked:
"Would it not be easier/ In that case for the government/
To dissolve the people/ And elect another?" More than
50 years later, this, perhaps, is a question that those
governing our country still need to ponder. |
