Power and the reformist impulse

FN SOUZA- Untitled.

Power and the reformist impulse


Till the mid-seventies dictatorial aberration of the Emergency, general elections routinely returned the Congress Party to power despite disappointment over the economic results. The Opposition gained a little ground and credibility, espousing a range of alternate strategies ranging from capitalist and free-market nostrums, to even more populist forms of socialism. Still, the political hold of the Congress was strong as the party at the forefront of the freedom struggle and India stayed under one party rule for over three decades.

Nevertheless, the growth rates were dismal. India remained poor with myriad short-comings, facing the ignominy of being a backward third-world nation, its high-minded international initiatives in the non-aligned movement often derided or ignored.

Despite this non-performance, the public loyalty endured. Indeed the best general election results ever for Congress came in the aftermath of Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984. The irony is that even with a near total sweep of parliament, the succeeding Rajiv Gandhi Government was stymied on most reformist issues by resistance from within its own ranks. And only near bankruptcy prompted reforms under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, the contours of which were largely dictated by the World Bank in return for a suitable bailout.

So it is seen, that reform does not necessarily predicate itself on lack of opposition, both formal and informal, from within and without. Irrespective of such opposition, reform still needs to be undertaken at different stages of a nation’s journey, and must necessarily spring from the vision of the leadership if it is not to be forced from without. And in pushing forward, the leadership knowingly and willingly must risk being swamped, both by the winds of change and the counter-winds of reaction.

Perestroika, in the then USSR, presided over by Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev, is a case in point. Many would argue that the tolerance towards reformist ideas initiated by him actually exposed the rot. And the demise of the Soviet Empire shows that reformist impulses do have a way of radicalising once unleashed, taking on a life and direction of their own that become very difficult to control.

That may also be why President Obama is being vilified and prematurely written off. The constant sloganeering about change that oiled his excellent election machine has been replaced by the nuanced positions of actual governance. But the public, reeling with up to 25 % unemployment among blacks, and perhaps influenced by simplistic if arch right-wing interpretations on the wildly popular Fox News Channel, is unimpressed.

This despite the real progress President Obama’s government has made on the economy, health reform and other areas. The public however, can only see the “vast undone”. Perhaps it simply misses the adrenaline and the limitlessness of the election rhetoric.

In India, over 63 years of self-rule, we have seen the excesses of both centralisation and its diced and pared opposite, without either extreme delivering the goods. And now, we may finally be veering around to the responsibilities of reasoned debate intended to be inclusive and representative. Centralisation and brute majorities have bred complacency and a fear of rocking the boat. And too much fragmentation has seen the politics of blackmail, disruption, and paralysis.

In the Indira Gandhi era, power was relentlessly centralised. It was applied, using licences and permits and an array of bureaucrats and political appointees in the all-powerful PMO rather than the ministries. Plus there was also an informal cabal of advisors, dubbed “the kitchen cabinet” that frequented the PM’s residence.

Politically this may have yielded rich results, but it did little for the economy, resulting in dismal GDP rates, rampant inflation, primitive infrastructure, and chronic shortages for almost all manufactured goods. But thankfully, not all the Government-knows-best statism fell on stony ground. The great successes during this period include the Green and White Revolutions in farming and milk production bolstered by mechanisation, new irrigation, and canals. And Mrs.Gandhi did do us proud in our confrontations with Pakistan and various separatist movements. She also pulled off the vital if oxymoronic “peaceful nuclear explosion” which altered our strategic possibilities.

This realpolitick was a relief after the overly idealistic Nehru era when we were invaded by the Chinese and couldn’t even feed ourselves without foreign food aid. Pandit Nehru however, was a constitutionalist. He worked, as intended by the Indian Constitution, through the Central Ministers and Ministries as well as the State Governments; relying on his towering stature, and copious correspondence, to carry the day.

He dominated and shaped all policy, even when he was mistaken, as in his naïve initiatives on Kashmir or in his gross miscalculations with regard to China. But Pandit Nehru felt no need to formalise the extent of his executive domination by legislative action.

Just as well, because excessive formalised centralisation is probably why we have greater democracy today. Because it was revulsion against the Emergency that gave birth to a non-Congress Government for the first time in the seventies. This was repeated through the eighties and nineties and could happen again before long.

But along with the power shifting to those who generally sit across the aisle from the Treasury Benches, came the era of coalitions, often made up of disparate elements and competing interests, and the peculiar phenomenon called “outside support”. And out of such political weakness and failed socialism has come the new market friendly policies that have resulted in renewed economic strength.

Even as the coalition era has proven unwieldy, it is a vast improvement on the erstwhile emasculated Chief Ministers of States and quaking central Cabinet Ministers. The PMOs steely grip over various Government entities and institutions including the presidency and governorships, the PSUs, even the judiciary, was complete. All who served in them did so at the pleasure and favour of the Prime Minister alone. The checks and balances intended by the Indian Constitution were subverted and its clauses and provisions used in a cavalier fashion.

But those days are now long gone, probably forever. And with the realignments, even amongst the regional parties fighting to stay relevant, there is a trend towards actually shaping legislation to reflect a broader consensus of public opinion and grass-roots concerns. The future therefore could well show the door to noisy morcha-like confrontation in favour of impassioned and persuasive debate followed by democratic voting in parliament and in the state assemblies alike.

(1,052 words)

15th March 2010
Gautam Mukherjee


Published in The Pioneer Edit Page Leader on 24th March 2010 as: Finding political middle ground. Also online at www.dailypioneer.com and is archived there under Columnists.