Retributions  

Political discourse has become too election-centric. It needs to move beyond it.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s latest Indian Express column is unusual in many ways. Apart from the stinging critique of prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, it is notable for its anguished tone. It appears that after delivering mild rebukes to the government over the past year, Dr. Mehta’s patience  has finally run out.

And who can blame him? This is the season of scams with the government lurching from one crisis to another. If anything, the audacity of the scams has been matched by the brazenness of Singh-Gandhi duo who have substituted even the modicum of accountability with rhetorical punches—some of which Dr. Mehta so admirably demolishes. So many scams have surfaced in recent months that one frequently hears that it is all part of a conspiracy to take the attention away from the previous case of graft: Think of how ridiculous that sounds. That such conspiracies are even entertained is a pointer to the depths the current government has plumbed to.

But the word which reverberates is brazenness. On the surface, it is surprising. Over the years, Dr. Singh has adroitly exploited his personal probity to deflect all criticism directed at him. While there are no personal charges of corruption against Dr. Singh, surely he must be aware that his carefully crafted image which has served him so well is slowly but surely being demolished. The case of Sonia Gandhi is even more striking. She is supposedly the conscience of the UPA government—the defender of the poor; the voice of the other India. Surely she must be bothered that her government—and it is really her government—-is merrily indulging in crony capitalism while paying lip service to the cause of the poor. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Why?

It is important to understand where this brazenness stems from. One hypothesis is that the Congress leadership simply believes that with the communists in decline and BJP still struggling to put its house in order, there is simply no credible opposition.  It may still be true. But BJP is increasingly showing signs of at least mounting a semblance of a fight. More importantly, politics is a matter of perception. There are many regional formations in the country who see little benefit in associating with BJP currently but would be happy to jump onto its bandwagon if it is again perceived as a serious national player. NDA may not yet be a raging elephant yet but UPA has taken a few hard punches. The electoral calculations can change in matter of months, and UPA which benefited massively from a similar phenomenon in 2004 cannot be unaware of that. So yes, the weakness of the opposition only partially explains this conundrum.

So let’s explore an alternate hypothesis. Many  of those critical of the Congress party believe that the media is simply beholden to the party. It may be true in many cases—sample this brazen defense of Dr. Singh’s winking at A. Raja’s corruption—but perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe it as the media’s refusal to take on the government in power.  (Contrast the glowing terms the Vajpayee government was described in 2004 before its electoral debacle with how it is portrayed in the media now where even its real achievements in infrastructure are dismissed.) Or as Rajdeep Sardesai described it in a recent column, the media’s abdication of ‘adversarial journalism.’ Why is this so?

Perhaps, it stems from a desire not to rub the government  the wrong way. The Indian government still remains all powerful and it is not shy of using the stick when it feels a media house is crossing the line.  Perhaps, it is due to the fact that as the Radia tapes show, the media personalities are themselves so deeply enmeshed in the system that they consider it their duty to defend it. (It was interesting that Barkha Dutt, referring to constant criticism directed against her,  mentioned that ‘system’ was under attack!)

Or perhaps in case of more fair-minded critics—and Dr. Mehta surely qualifies as one—it is because they often confuse electoral success as an endorsement of the government’s policy making process. Sample this op-ed which Dr. Mehta published in March 2009, just 2 months before the general elections,

The UPA’s irresponsible management of government finances ensured it had little room for manoeuvre when the downturn came. The government is announcing package after stimulus package. But it is unable to spend the money it has sanctioned. Road construction—an activity central for jobs, inclusion and growth—slowed down because the government endlessly procrastinated over simple contracting issues.

The government wanted inclusive growth, yet it has done virtually nothing for small and medium enterprises and the informal sector, the real drivers of growth. Big industry could rely on captive power plants and special treatment, while small entrepreneurs had to bear the cost of bad public infrastructure. It spent all its political capital on subsiding big business, creating SEZs that are, to put it simply, the largest granting out of private diwani rights since the coming of the East India Company. [link]

Two months later, as soon as election results are declared, Dr. Mehta again,

But in the end nothing can take away from the fact that the Congress’s strategy was hugely successful. Even his critics have to acknowledge that Dr Manmohan Singh’s government seemed to be a safer pair of hands than any of the competitors. He can claim credit for the fact that this election was not taking place against the backdrop of deep discontentment; if anything, most people have more cash in their pockets. Agrarian growth has been impressive, procurement prices high, subsidies galore, government employees with cash in their pockets; and despite the recent slowdown, the continuous record of growth was a strong hand with which to go to the elections. Rahul Gandhi should rightly get the credit for laying the political foundations of this victory. But in end that could not have been possible, without the fact that the government, for all its imperfections seemed more credible than all the rivals. [link]

(Read the articles in full to understand how marked the shift in tone is)

One can find multiple articles of this nature. Sagarika Ghose went from labeling NREGA as an insult to rural poor to describing it in glowing terms and as a lesson to those focussed on India shining. Indeed, NREGA was particularly illustrative. From another wasteful scheme, a relic of the Nehruvian era, it suddenly metamorphosed into the most magnificent scheme ever conjured.

Admittedly, electoral results pose a challenge to political analysts. How does one remain critical of the government just after it has won a resounding election victory? How does one criticize schemes which appear to have been endorsed by the voters? So there appears to be a rush towards post-facto justification; the fact that many government schemes with negative long-term consequences can remain popular in the short-term seems to escape the notice of most commentators.  Or notice the coronation of Nitish Kumar as Bihar’s ‘Bismarck’ despite serious governance challenges and the fact that the process of rebuilding Bihar has just started.

Now, let’s be clear. elections are important in a democracy. But in every democracy electoral choices are about choosing the best among the worst. It is entirely possible that many reasonable people will conclude in 2014 that UPA remains the best choice for government and if they are a large enough block, the alliance would be voted back to power. But the role of opinion leaders cannot only be to act as foil for populist opinion. In that case, why bother with say op-ed pages anyways—we could simply jump from one election to another. They must answer to a higher calling.  Their job is not to be swept by the emotions of the ephemeral but offer a considered and consistent critique which helps shape the public opinion. Most people cannot be bothered with day-to-day functioning of the government—that is why the role of civil society and media is so important. When they act as virtual cheer leaders of the government, they let down the people of India.

Whatever the cause of media and civil society’s abdication of its role as watch dogs, it should not be surprising then, that, the government attempts to brazen out of the multiple scams it finds it self in. When there are finally faint murmurs of criticism against Dr. Singh, it is dressed up as appeal to his sense of decency—virtually beseeching him to protect his reputation—as if Dr. Singh’s image is more important than the nation!  Naturally, Dr. Singh who appears to have borrowed his disdain for the media from Mrs. Gandhi treats it with contempt refusing to answer even the most elementary questions. (Again, as Dr. Mehta so succinctly points out, the question of whether Mr. Raja’s shenanigans had the approval of the prime minister can be answered in 10 minutes.) When the government in power perceives that opinion leaders of this country imagine no alternative to it, why should it be bothered about stories of few scams which it rightly believes would be forgotten long before the next elections are due?It almost appears as if the government believes who else can they root for?

A functional democracy requires multiple players to perform—politicians, voters, and the media. It is time some of those who have abdicated their responsibilities understand that.