Themes > Current Issues
13.11.2007
Can the PM Cope with Democracy
C.P.
Chandrasekhar
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.
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.
© MACROSCAN
2007