The problem

THE ninth anniversary of the UPA rule was celebrated in a low-key manner, not because of any false modesty on part of the ruling coalition but because even its ever energetic spin masters seem aware that its second term in office had little to showcase. Given its unexpected electoral performance in 2009, and the disarray in the opposition, many believed (and hoped) that the coupled leadership of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, would give fresh impetus to a stalled reform agenda. Unfortunately, a combination of economic slowdown (reduced investment, both domestic and foreign; sluggish employment growth, particularly in the organized sector; high and persistent inflation) and political ineptitude (inability to manage intra-party and intra-coalition wrangles in facing serious allegations of corruption and misuse of office) has led to a serious erosion of legitimacy and confidence. To make matters worse, the inability to construct a working consensus with the opposition has resulted in a continuing logjam in Parliament, in effect putting an end to the passage of much needed legislation. Slowly, a consensus is emerging that what is needed are early rather than late elections.

Therein lies a quandary. Most observers agree that elections, whether earlier in 2013 or as scheduled in 2014, are unlikely to result in any one party or coalition receiving a clear mandate. And though the country is familiar with coalitional governments (the last time a party won outright majority was the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi in 1984) this long experience has failed to result in the evolution of a political culture which sufficiently values compromise and bipartisan consensus such that both Parliament and the government can continue of function with relative coherence. A tendency wherein a ruling party/coalition believes and behaves as if it alone enjoys legitimacy and thus has little need to accommodate the legitimate concerns of the opposition, while the opposition remains fixated on blocking all initiatives of government, can only result in a logjam and legislative and policy paralysis, as we have seen in recent years.

Slowly but steadily, the lack of trust and cooperation across the political party spectrum has impaired not just parliamentary functioning, but impacted other institutions of the state, even those enjoying constitutional autonomy, such that all decisions have begun to be read through a partisan political lens. It is indeed disturbing that appointments to and the functioning of institutions such as the judiciary, the Election Commission, the office of the Comptroller and Accountant General, to name a few, which have so far enjoyed relatively high public trust, are today mired in controversy. With political calculus trumping institutional propriety, it is not surprising that the relatively low trust in politicians and political parties is extended to all institutions of the Republic, deepening the disquiet about the robustness and efficacy of our institutional and political architecture.

Lest this be misunderstood, it bears reiteration that there is little support for a radical recasting of the Constitution or a shift from a parliamentary form of government to a presidential one. Basic democratic rights and multi-party elections are non-negotiable. Nor is there any substantive support for a majoritarian social ethic or a reworking of Centre-state relations, which entails dilution of provincial autonomy. If at all, the demand is for a further deepening and extension of citizen’s rights and strengthening of local autonomy in a framework of inclusion, transparency and accountability. This can be done not merely through a reiteration of basic principles but a greater democratic engagement with the rules and procedures of institutional functioning. Only then can we hope to rebuild the fractured trust in our public functionaries.

India, circa 2013, is a very different country from the one which imagined and chose its political, institutional architecture. A vast majority of our population is under 30 years of age, well over a third of our citizens live in urban areas, and with more people than ever before migrating, permanently or seasonally, to cities, this number will soon become a majority. The nature of jobs and occupations has dramatically changed, as have the modes of communication and learning. A young, mobile, better informed and aware populace has very different expectations from the state and reflects an altered political culture – impatient and aspirational, unwilling to acquiesce to older forms of functioning or rule.

All these factors pose serious challenges to our political class, many of whom (both politicians and parties) continue to persist with old and tired categories which pigeonhole citizens into ethnic/class/regional boxes and treat them as supplicants needing dole. It is this inability to comprehend that what most citizens demand are not handouts but opportunities and infrastructure, undergirded by a regime of rights, which can enable them to avail of emerging opportunities. This, in part, may explain the continuing mismatch between policy pronouncements, design and implementation, as also why political mandates do not easily transalate into effective governance.

There is no dearth of suggestions/proposals about what needs to be done for reforming our electoral/political system or administrative and judicial structures. What at the moment seems distant is a leadership which can both enthuse and effectively tap into the vast creative energies in the county. Hopefully, the impending elections will provide a fresh opportunity.