By the people - democracy in India

When a great insight is repeated often enough (as it will be) it becomes a cliche. And a cliche becomes banal, robbed of its profundity by familiarity. This is very true of Joseph de Maistre's great insight (often attributed to de Tocqueville or Lincoln, such is its power) that "in a democracy people get the leaders they deserve."

There is some sense in India today that our parliamentary leaders are a bunch of criminals and thugs foist on us with no legitimacy. Not true. Our members of parliament do not parachute into parliament house and commandeer it. They all get elected, some get thrown out in the next election, many are elected repeatedly. The people of India choose these men and women to represent them. There is horror at increasing criminalisation of politics, and disgust at dynastic succession. Truth is, political parties are primarily election focussed (obsessed?) and favour individuals who will win. These people win. The question is why - why does the electorate knowingly elect these people? That is the question, not the 'legitimacy' of elected politicians. Who in India isn't aware that the Gandhis are a dynasty? Haven't people in Delhi heard about certain Congress politicians being linked to the 1984 killings? Is anyone in Gujarat clueless about the 2002 massacre? Who in his UP constituency doesn't know Raja Bhaiyya's reputation? By voting such people in the electorate certainly deserves them. 

It is also said that this is all because of the absence of decent candidates. The logical deduction would be that 'good' candidates always get elected. Sadly not true. If you were to look for the most progressive constituencies, ones that would by that logic readily elect upright, moral, intelligent candidates, then South Bombay and South Delhi would surely top the list. Meera Sanyal barely got 10,000 votes in South Bombay in the last election. Manmohan Singh, while he was still well respected years ago got so badly thrashed in South Delhi that he lost his nerve and never stood for election again - and he, unlike Sanyal even had the backing of the Congress party. In another setting, Malika Sarabhai, a philanthropist and social activist from a very well known and respected family lost miserably in her home constituency, where she, her work and her family are well known. 

Maistre was right.  It is not about the leaders as much as it is about the electorate, the people. The middle class (so called) is dismayed by the leaders we have, and that is because the opinion of the middle class has been pretty irrelevant to the outcome of elections. The leaders have been someone else's choice, driven by factors which the middle class does not understand. All that is changing. The same Congress that has for decades had scant regard for the opinions of the middle class is now sitting up and taking notice of it. It is beginning to change its policies and actions, sensing that the power equation has changed. After having introduced a bill and an ordinance this year to allow criminals to remain in parliament it got cold feet and backtracked shamelessly as it saw urban public reaction getting ugly. 

The middle class in India has now reached numbers where it could well determine the next election, provided enough come out and vote. One reason for poor representation of middle class opinion has been poor turnout of their numbers at the polls - that could be part of the reason Sanyal and Singh got thrashed.  The well orchestrated anti corruption agitation and even more significantly, the subsequent spontaneous, fearless, leaderless and more successful anti rape demonstrations have now given the middle class a taste of success, a feeling that it now matters. It is now determined to force change, and hopefully that will translate into votes. That is what was missing so far. It is the turning point that other democracies have experienced, and it is now upon us. 

Now that the middle class is in a position to assert itself what will happen? So far, the focus is primarily on corruption, a cause celebre which seems to have sucked all the oxygen out of the room, leaving little for the urgency and imperative of economic growth. The US, the oldest constitutional democracy in the world went through its robber baron, crony capitalism phase. When the middle class asserted itself, greater probity came in, and the very same two parties cleaned up their act, election reforms and anti-trust laws followed and cleaned up the system greatly. However, the importance of business was never in doubt. Successful societies recognise that prosperity is essential for human well being. Even the current emergence of the middle class in India as a force for change is the result of economic growth. The wrong headed squeamishness of Indians about business needs to yield to a recognition that business is the only engine for economic growth, that eliminating widespread gut wrenching poverty in our country depends on giving business its due importance. The recent debacle regarding FDI in retail is a perfect example of India's conflicted approach to business, of wanting to drive ahead with the hand brake on. 

We need politics that elevates money generation, profit to the highest priority. Not the only priority, not an uncaveated priority, but the highest. China did, in a communist regime, and their per capita GDP is three times ours starting from the same base 35 years ago.  Tocqueville wrote with admiration that America judged the value of every issue in terms of the money it would generate. No wonder the US is so prosperous, while our dysfunctional, socialistic, anti business country has achieved less than 3% of the US per capita GDP, we have 50% of the world's poor and similar proportions of malnourished children. Lifting these destitute souls out of their bleak and wretched hopelessness asap should be our primary focus. 

  

Politically, our problem is that we are stuck with Hobson's choice. Either we empower the Hindutva promoting and anti-westernisation Sangh Parivar, or we stay with the dynastic and dissolute Congress party. Maybe Narendra Modi can make a difference, yet do we want the Sangh Parivar with their virulent communal hang ups and sclerotic desire for a backward flip into archaic conservative traditions, both born of a fixation on the past? Should we risk enhancing Hindutva based tensions in society and belligerence towards our hostile neighbour - maybe even start a war over the next terrorist act? On the other hand, looked at soberly, these risks appear overblown. After all, the BJP ruled at the centre, led by Vajpayee, quite responsibly. Chauhan, Parrikar, Raman Singh the other current BJP chief ministers are also quite moderate. Even so Modi, who's persona reveals his strong RSS past and who carries the stain of 2002 is a strongly polarising figure and does magnify these generic fears about BJP rule. 

Despite all this, and despite his rough, rustic, unlettered, swaggering and gaffe prone persona Modi has a reputation for clean and efficient governance and he understands, welcomes and supports business. Earning across the board support from diverse business leaders isn't easy. It reflects respect for not just the individual but for the clean and effective state wide administration he runs and cannot be, should not be easily dismissed. Is a stint for him worth these risks? Well, maybe it is.  If wealth creation is the highest priority, doesn’t he represent our best chance to make a clean break from our socialism soaked past?  The thought is tempting driven by sheer desperation for radical change. In the old days they used to give malaria to cure syphillis. The problem is, I am not entirely sure which is malaria and which is syphillis here. The day I make a final determination on that I will have made a choice - the toughest electoral choice I have faced. 

Some say we need a new liberal party to take the agenda forward. Well, there is none on the horizon. All we have is the newly minted AAP, the current favourite of those in thrall of its anti corruption catechism.  While it is just confined to Delhi for now, Kejriwal has declared national ambitions. What does he stand for? Is AAP progressive - the answer to India's challenges for the 21st century?  Kejriwal doesn't display any real concern for rapid economic growth, or any understanding of its complexities, let alone a passion for it. His only clearly enunciated policy is anti corruption. Other than that he has populist promises like give-aways of water free of charge and cutting the price of electricity in half, revealing a commitment to dystopic socialism as well as a hostility to business - a hostility which shows up repeatedly in his pronouncements. Support for business, the compelling need of the hour, is a far cry. Being anti-corruption is his only positive attribute. That is like a person applying for the job of MD of a company in deep trouble saying, when asked 'how will you turn things around?":  'I will be honest', 'Yes, but what will you do?': 'I will be honest.' Would you hire him or her? 

Yet, nature and history abhor a vacuum. The regions will have more say - that is the inescapable force of history in India. That is how we were before the British gave us a common language and administration that created the possibility of India as a country.  The increased importance of regions can be through regional parties, though it is hard to see what will bind them together in an orderly, sustainable fashion with coherent, progressive policies. Or it could be through a complete reorganisation of the existing parties with the sweeping out of the self obsessed, clueless, out of touch central oligarchies, a hangover from the freedom movement, in favour of regional, performance based leaderships which will be more in tune with the beat of the country; a complete makeover of the existing parties, driven by the expectations and aspirations of the youth dominated middle class. That would be our true demographic dividend. Modi is the first salvo of the regional, performance based onslaught, unnerving as that has been to the Delhi political establishment. 

Quite possibly it will be a combination of both - regional parties as well as meritocratic regional leadership for central parties. Time will tell how the defining change in demographics towards youth and middle class and a return to India's historical regional focus plays out, catalysed by disgust and anger at the shamefully shameless dysfunction at the centre. The hope for change lies in the young who want jobs and prosperity, and the electorate in the states who have tasted some economic success, want more, and are driving politics towards meritocracy - a transformational shift for the country. 

Yet, Maistre will have the last word in determining how far we go and how fast we go.