Victor Hugo said that nobody can stop an idea whose time has come. The big question in election 2014 is whether the idea whose time has come belongs to Narendra Modi, to Arvind Kejriwal or to Rahul Gandhi? There is also a fourth idea - a coalition of federated regional powers - but the idea will not take root till it is articulated as clear strategy.
BJP's PM candidate Narendra Modi and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, whose theories Karl Marx drew upon, suggested that every historical process contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Which idea – the idea of unexplored change, as encapsulated in the Aam Aadmi Party, or the idea of change with stability, as promised by Modi, and the idea of more of the same, as perceived in Rahul Gandhi's dynastic credentials – will be the one to capture the voter's imagination in the general election? Which one contains the seeds of its own destruction?
Let's be clear: no idea will capture the imagination forever. What we have to guess is which idea is past its sell-by date, which one is hot right now, and which one will fail for now, but could still contain enough promise within itself to revive in future.
My short answer, given upfront, is this: Kejriwal's idea is right, but his time hasn't come; Modi's idea has traction, and its time could be now; and Rahul Gandhi's idea of internal change in the party is too self-obsessed and internally focused to appeal to the electorate. It is out of tune with voter mood. Hence it lacks appeal for now or later.
Let's set the context in which the competing ideas will be evaluated by the voter. We are in an economic downturn brought about by excessive government spending and redistribution of taxpayers' wealth towards the poor and politically-favoured constituencies. This situation has upset all the powerful classes and also the poor – the rich businessmen are not investing, the middle classes are seeing jobs and income growth levelling off, and the poor are being bitten hard by inflation. The payment of doles and subsidies is not nearly enough to mitigate this all-round drop in fortunes for all classes.
The proposition that has found the seeds of its own destruction is the one where the state plays mai-baap by promising people all kinds of rights and freebies ahead of the economy's ability to fund this munificence. The growth of UPA-1 gave government the leeway to help the poor, but this expansion of the state's role has stretched resources to a point where all growth is being funded only by handouts – the so-called rural consumption story that relies on regular increases in state-administered prices of foodgrain, higher fuel and fertiliser subsidies. Unproductive jobs are now the gift of the state in the form of NREGA. The UPA's subsidy-driven rural growth has reached a point where the only consequence is slower growth and high inflation, as Rajiv Shastri points out in this article in Business Standard.
Whenever the state overreaches, the usual result is often administrative bloat and corruption. The latter is especially true in our context, where a Frankenstein state is captured by various interests of caste, community, and crony capitalism. The economy's lurch to the left under UPA-1 and UPA-2 has ensured excessive bureaucracy, higher systemic corruption and high prices.
The UPA's rights-based approach to social and economic policy has created demand for subsidies and services without creating the necessary supply to meet this demand cost-effectively and without excessive inflation. The money thrown around is just driving up prices. You can't raise food prices, given people subsidised food, and spend money all over and still believe that inflation will come down. Guaranteed work and free food lowers the incentive to find real work or even work harder to earn an income. It is a self-defeating process guaranteed to produce a society of parasites despite its noble intent.
Moreover, you can't legislate rights and then expect supply to rise to meet demand without reforming. Enacting, for example, the right to education without a policy to increase the supply of good schools, will only ensure educational incompetence.
In fact, what the Right to Education Act has ensured is the debasement of existing education quality, as this ASER study shows. The same will be the case with all other rights – from right to food to right to work. A slowing economy cannot provide regular work, and make-work schemes bloat the budget and make the economy even less able to create jobs. In future, you will need even more subsidies to feed the poor.
So it is fair to conclude that UPA's initial success in redistributing wealth during its high-growth years has ensured subsidy bloat that is now destroying its chances of re-election. UPA-1's success contained within it the seeds of its subsequent destruction under UPA-2. Demand driven growth is hitting the wall of supply constraints.
The time is thus right for two correctives: the first question revolves around how does one transit to an economy where the supply side gets primacy over the demand-side, where investment takes priority over consumption?
The second corrective relates to how do we move towards a system that is more open and transparent, and where corruption comes down?
Broadly speaking, Modi offers an antidote to the first problem and Kejriwal to the second. One can't assume that either of them has a long-term or sustainable solution to either, but we are discussing what looks likely to be a massive vote for change in 2014. This may play out differently in different states, given the existence of strong regional players in some eastern and southern states. But northern and western India will see a galeforce for change.
From what one can see now in the opinion polls, the voter wants both the Modi idea of competent governance and growth and the Kejriwal idea of anti-corruption, but while Modi's promise continues to excite Kejriwal's has faltered on the hard rock of reality in Delhi.
This does not mean Kejriwal's idea has no traction, but it's time may not have come. Kejriwal's idea excites many, but delivery has been feeble so far. No one can figure out where it is heading. As KN Govindacharya, former RSS ideologue and a friend of Kejriwal, says in an interview to The Economic Times: "I fear that Kejriwal may become the Abhimanyu of Mahabharata, where he learns how to enter the chakravyuh and doesn't know how to exit. In the Mahabharata, the gurus broke the rules to attack him, and Arvind (Kejriwal) too might face such unethical attacks, from thaili shahs (bag men), to naukar shahs (bureaucrats) to rival parties. But the fact is that in terms of a political continuum, the process will be on, many experiments like this are in the pipeline."
Broadly speaking, the Hegelian proposition has generally worked out in Indian politics. In 1991, after the failure of big government and messy governance under Rajiv Gandhi and VP Singh, the country voted for the Congress which turned right under Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh's reforms. Towards the end of the Rao regime, the Congress turned populist again, leading to higher inflation and slower growth. It was voted out and led to political confusion under the United Front governments of Deve Gowda and IK Gujral.
This shifted the voter mood towards the right and stronger government in 1998-99. But the years of slow growth with reforms began to tell on poverty and the poor, and this is why the voter again turned left and elected the UPA in 2004. India was just beginning to shine, but not many could see the gloss.
But 10 years of a leftward shift or drift is forcing both the voter and the economy to require a course correction – and currently Kejriwal's politics appear more left than right, more wrong than right. The voter cannot see a solution even if the idea of taking on the corrupt is appealing.
The fourth idea - a federal or third front - is also an idea for the future, but it will need clear articulation of goals to find traction. For example, if a federation of regional parties can give themselves, say, a revolving structure of leadership and promises constitutional amendments to devolve more power to the states, it would be a powerful idea - even more powerful than Kejriwal's. But the idea remains unarticulated for want a visionary leader. More than Arvind Kejriwal, this idea could be owned by his colleague Yogendra Yadav, who has co-authored a book on State-Nation - the reverse of a nation-state, where nationality proceeds not topdown from centre to states, but upwards from state to centre, in a super federated political structure.
It is a powerful idea of India, but not articulated this time.
The logic of Hegel thus suggests that India will shift to the right and a stronger central government in 2014. The wheel may be turning against weak government, big government and populist freebies, which has consumed the seeds of its own destruction. After every Boris Yeltsin comes a Vladimir Putin. Modi's time may be now, and Kejriwal's/Yadav's later.
No comments:
Post a Comment