Democracy & Crony Capitalism -- III (The Debate)

Continued from 


Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

To respond to your suggestions/comments, while they sound pretty logical and even achievable, I am afraid in reality it is a lot more complex than what they seem on paper. For instance, 'When the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI are run by the right people" is a huge challenge that can take decades although at this point, to me, a century seems like a realistic time! How Shoaib, are the 'right people' to be identified? Is 'efficiency' or 'honesty' going to be the hallmark of the 'right people'? If you say both, is it realistic to expect such people to entangle themselves in the web of bureaucracy? I for one, think I am efficient and sure I am honest, but whatever the incentive I would never get into a government establishment, although my parents and extended family are entrenched in the government!

Now, if bureaucracy is simplified and cleaned up, perhaps. But it is a chicken and egg situation. It is not possible to get rid of the people now manning the government organisations and appoint people with a different mindset and unless there are people with a different mindset, things are not going to change! So, frankly I do not see a way out. And no, I am not willing to blame the politicians for the entire mess. I think the bureaucrats are also responsible for it, and in a major way.

As for the TN politicians, the problem is not one of unity. I do not want them to stick together. I think democracy is all about diversity and that includes diversity in ideas/thoughts as well. But what pains me is their ineptitude and inability to make the right choices. When democracy is about short-term populism, then there is little that can be done. What is required is statesmanship and leaders with foresight which Indian democracy does not allow. 

Now to 'functioning democracy', I disagree with the definition. I think it is too simplistic. Yes, I have the right to vote out Karunanidhi but if all I can do is opt for Jayalalithaa (who won by an incredible margin), then it is not democracy in the true sense. To choose one rogue over another is no choice at all. You are basing the definition on the process and ignoring the many complexities that renders the process superficial. And we are still electing a person rejected by the majority of the electorate. I brought in Kashmir merely as an example of how just because a method is followed we beat our breasts and claim to be a great democracy. Agreed Kashmir is a festering wound and needs a lot more thought. But there are many places in which elections are just that, a mere process that is held to signal democracy. I do not see any merit in this.

My grouse is with the understanding of democracy as the Westminster model and transposing it onto countries like India and expecting it to work. While I would not support the regressive policies of Singapore, what I would like is to adapt the Westminster model taking into account the peculiarities of India and then implementing it. That requires intellectual discussion which I do not think we are capable of now. May be, after my lifetime. But frankly Shoaib, looking at the new generation, I have lost hope. When they are bred on populism and learn to appreciate and come to expect it then intellectual deliberation is never going to happen!

Sorry to end this on such a hopeless note!

-------------------------

I completely agree with the fact that they will not be easy to achieve. The barriers would be numerous.    

The first problem would be to establish who would be the right person; this is next to impossible in daily life. And many times our conclusions are proved wrong in hindsight. Everyone thought Manmohan Singh would be a great Prime Minister but he is highly disappointing, as he has no idea of politics. He is a successful technocrat and a failed politician. 

Before getting to the response, allow me to first explain about my perceptions and things that we will have to agree to irrespective of our liking. My perception is that there are three fold problems that we need to correct. 

1. Problem of not being a citizen 

Unless we do not participate, how can the country be fixed? It is fine that I don’t want to be a politician but then do I try and support the candidates that are good enough for the job? Did I try and help them? 

If we ask ourselves such kind of questions then the answer is usually negative. I hardly get time to meet people but after online search and talking to some people while in Bangalore, I found that Loksatta party is good. And talking with some of my friends who are aware of Telegu politics it seems that the founder of the party JP Narayan is a genuine person. So I make my political donations to his party. Though I agree that there presence is limited, but at least there is a reason to have hope that it can grow. Similarly I find Navin Jindal a decent politician, although the same opinion is not there for the congress party. 

If there are no candidates then we should either get into it or find someone to enter it, again not an easy task nonetheless it is fairly possible.  

Individuals' will need to show that they have a stake in the country. Authority and privileges are derived by fulfilling the responsibilities. 

2. The problem of incentives. The question of efficiency, honesty etc.  

I completely agree with you, that there is no way of finding the right person. 

Recently, Patna had a new SP, Shivdeep Lande. Now this gentleman took a measure that in a short period the crime rate and problem of eve-teasing in the city came down. Therefore, he is being transferred! This is atrocious. There are at least a dozen senior officials about whom I have read, they were transferred because they did the job in the right way. Else, the government created special posts with no powers, no specific work and then transferred these people there. A politician once talking to his friend admitted that many officers are given quick promotions and then placed behind desks so that they can be less harmful to the ‘usual’ business.

Then there was a report that some IAS officer's name was suggested to be on the board of SEBI. Later it came to light that this IAS was a relative of the Finance Secretary that is why other officials who had more experience and precise expertise were not favored by the ministry. 

To stop such transfers and promotions, some sort of check and balances needs to be built in the system. I did think of few things but there could be practical problems there. Besides I have not had the opportunity to see these institutions from close quarters therefore it is extremely difficult to suggest anything as of now. 

I did come across a report few months back that was prepared by some government committee. They had suggested reviewing the achievements and policy making of all IAS and IPS on completion of 20 years of service. Based on which their retirement or further promotion be assessed. I liked this idea. Because 20 years a long time. It’s easy to judge policies that may have been unpopular at the time but did great work over the years. 

Therefore, it is my view that to some extent we can find the right people. Not always, maybe not even most of the times but definitely enough times to make sure that the country manages to do well and not reach the precipice of abyss. 

One interesting article written by an IAS on what to change in the system -- http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-17/all-that-matters/29427639_1_ias-officers-civil-service-evaluation

Future saviour or savor finder

Once this is achieved then, miscreants should be dissuaded from joining the system by changing the incentive methodologies. 

Few of my school friends are preparing for Civil Services in Delhi. So, once I met them and they introduced me to other aspirants as well. After listening to them for few hours, the conclusion was some of these people are preparing and intend to join the system to exploit only! 

Why? Because they all know people who exploit it and nothing happens to such officers. This attitude needs to change. 

To clean up bureaucracy, the politics needs to change. Because that is how corruption came. Inefficient and dishonest people were promoted, the people who have the power to make such changes need to change else it is difficult to correct. That is the way it will go. (Rather than Lokpal bill if Anna and team can fix this then it’s worth it else it’s just another bureaucratic layer.)

3.  The problem of Patience 

Looking at history closely reveals that corruption at the state and higher level took roots around late 1960s' and 1970s' in politics and bureaucracy. Then it was in 1980s and 1990s when it became a common phenomenon. After 2000 it has been rampant, very much a part of our lives, and we have all accepted it. It took us approximately 30 years to become blatantly corrupt. That is roughly a time-frame when a new officer would have risen to the very top of the system and perhaps retired or would be nearing retirement. We are now living in an era where people who will be taking over the reins of the country, at top level, were born around the time when corruption at high places started blooming. 

To expect that it will get solved in a year or within a decade is wrong.  I wouldn't say that in such a short time a change so radical is not possible but the stakes will be too high. It requires a major catalyst for results in short period, usually what historians later label as revolution. We will have to wait for a generation to grow with the determination to bring about changes.     

     

Response

Finding the right people: Addressed in "2. The problem of incentives. The question of efficiency, honesty etc"

Getting into government establishment: Participate. I can think of two ways for now -

1. You can also work for the government on a consultation basis. Planning commission regularly has openings regarding consultants across various fields. Perhaps other government organization will also be looking for consultation services. If you have friends and family then through them participate.

2. Also think of a pioneering service like: http://www.prsindia.org/ .

One of the founders of PRS Legislative comes from Bank of America. http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/04201606/Switcheroo.html

Responsibility of bureaucrats or politicians: They are both responsible. But the onus shall lay with the law framer more than the implementer.

Diversity, Democracy and Statesmanship: I agree with you completely. Democracy is diversity. But in the name of diversity it does not mean we become a nuisance instigator. That is something that politicians will need to take care of more than normal people. Statesmanship is a difficult job and looking over a long period is not easy for most people. It is complex. To create statesman will require change of perception by the people, who choose them. And those who are able to see and bring change will have to come forward. 

The problem of choice: Participate or find someone worthy and ask him/her to participate. There is no way around it. Agreed in some places it may not work. Then change places. If Azharuddin can move from Hyderabad to UP, Karan Singh can come down from J&K to Lucknow, then why not move away for the moment and the come back. For the sake of argument I will agree the process is flawed in 60 percent of the places. But 40 per cent is an open and fair ground where changes can be brought about.

What Next?

If you still think none of this will work, then what is the other option? American System is also flawed. The population is too huge to put in place the mandatory participation or the systems followed in most of the Europe. Massive changes are not possible under current circumstances. So we don't have much of a chance to get away from the Westminster model.

But I am not hopeless; sometimes the reaction of my peers does dampen hope. But I have come to understand that the lack of intellectual capacity is because of media and lifestyle (My brother was in US, his narration of interaction with the locals does not show a pretty picture. They are good in their field of choice but a day in a life covers beyond professional hours). It is my understanding that this problem with modern generation is there all over the world. And given time and experience we will grow.

Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

Second, I like your optimism and I wish you all the best, although I do not share it. Shoaib, in my previous avatar (centuries ago) I was an idealist who even wanted to be the President of India in order to set it right! I find it so laughable because that is really what I would repeat to everyone in all seriousness in school and college. But what I am impressed with is that I used to say I will rule the country like Hitler!!!

I think that is really what we need. Not Hitler perhaps, but a benevolent despot. This democracy, people's verdict whatever, does not work for us. I think it was Rajaretnam in Singapore who said that South Asia has been ruled by monarchies for centuries and centuries and that is what people understand and appreciate. This Westminster type of democracy (which incidentally the British have changed and we hold on to its ruins, much like the education system we inherited) is not for us. I think there is something there, although as I said in the earlier mail, I do find Singapore policies too repressive and the people automatons!

I repose faith in a few who are keen on changing the society etc., but I am also anxious that they will be defeated by the system. At times I must own I have been defeated by the system and felt absolutely wretched. 

So for your sake and the sake of your generation I shall hope and pray things change.

Democracy & Crony Capitalism -- II (The Debate)

Continued from


Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

Interesting! And good methodology too. 

But I have some issues: now '(1) On bio and financial info of its elected leaders available to the public' does not signal anything. There is this whole system of 'benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob.

Step 3 will indicate connections to corporate houses or interests. But problems with democracy are more than just crony capitalism, isn't it? For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations.

I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in Kashmir, suffice?

I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in South Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc.

--------------

Response

"There is this whole system of 'Benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob."

I have thought a lot about 'Benami' problem though in an entirely different context. My understanding is that it will get solved with digitization and changes in election process procedure. The problem of 'benami' will be sorted when the parallel economy of black money is reined in. And that will happen over a period of time. There is no instant solution and this one requires a more top-bottom approach. When the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI are run by the right people or let us say procedures are followed and Ministers do not have the authority to change the course of investigation. Current organization structure gives the ministers too much of power, the departments are run more at the mercy of politicians, hence making it difficult to curb the Benami and the black money problem.

I will make no claim that these measures will end the corruption but definitely compared to current levels it can be curbed by 90 per cent or more with just tweaking the reporting and appointment structure. This is why I am not for the lokpal bill for now but rather a tweak in the system for better authority and responsibility. 

"....For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations."

This is a problem of power play and aspirations. There is a famous story that we all have been told: There was a farmer. He had five sons. They were always fighting. To teach them to stick together he gave each one of them a stick and asked them to break it. And they all managed to do so. Then he bundled the sticks together and asked his each one of his sons to try and break it. None of his sons' were successful at the task. Hence, the moral that if you stick together then no one will be able to break it. 

Now our dear politicians/leaders have taken this story to their heart and have re-written it the other way round. So they try and break the society on any possible ground and keep people in the dark in any way possible. This helps them keep in power. The part that is upsetting is that media, the fourth estate or the watchdog of democracy, is actually colluding with these politicians. While it is easy to break, compartmentalize and rule its tough to build a nation. For now I am short on ideas, on how can we fix this problem. Ultimately it will come down to people who choose and to those who decide to serve the nation as its leader. 

"I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in Kashmir, suffice?"

Actually this is a very good question but few, to my knowledge perhaps no one asks this question. But its simple: 

Any country where a government can be changed by means of non-violence and consensus building through voting fulfills the basic criteria of "democracy". 

A "functioning democracy" will be the one where the elected government has the authority to frame the laws of the land and the only way to challenge them should by either changing the government or by challenging it in the court of law that the new law is against the basic tenets of the country's foundation. This little criterion is important because though Pakistan and Thailand are democratic country but there governments are weak and hence they do not qualify for functioning democracy. With its last election Turkey will qualify for a functioning democracy before that they had a huge issue with the military as a major player in the politics. 

There are three prime examples good elections are: During the General Election in India, when Dr Karan Singh fought an election with AB Vajpayee in Lucknow, which though Vajpayee won but the margins were too narrow despite Lucknow being a safe constituency for Vajpayee. In the same General Elections Sushma Swaraj was fielded against Sonia Gandhi in Bellary (if I remember correct) and there too the margins were too narrow for Gandhi despite the constituency being considered safe for her. And on the state level when Shibhu Soren fought from a so called safe constituency to retain his position as the CM but he lost out to Raja Peters. (link: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-01-08/news/27634178_1_shibu-soren-raja-peter-jharkhand-chief-minister )

Now comes the Kashmir part. To allow secession, is out of the question its like removing the stick from the bundle. Everyone has too much to lose in such a situation. There are no gainers except the person who appoints himself or herself as the ruler/leader etc.

As for the state itself, there are two levels of problem there. One a consistent external fuel and second that our leaders don't accept mistakes and then try to correct them. 

Omar Abdullah's point that Army should be kept to barracks or their authority should be curbed in places where they do not have any operations is correct by all standards but that is the problem no one is listening. I think a similar step of limiting the Army's role in north-east is also important. For such situations, I think it all comes down to leadership and how the states are being handled. Too many mistakes were done at the time of Independence 1. The partition 2. The formula of sharing lands/states during partition 3. The formation of states 4. By not disbanding the congress 5. Currently by not heeding to the CM. Since when did the Defence Minister and the Generals gain so much power to decide the administration capacity in a state? This is a blunder in making. (These are at the top of my list). 

"I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in South Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc."

Agreed. But we did change a lot. And this concept will also change albeit with a lot of time. One of the disadvantage of being in the public life and being given the responsibility of using power is that there cannot be any of a private life and one shall always be under scrutiny. The politicians can accept it now else they will have to accept it 50 years later, provided democracy remains and the country does not disband itself. 


Continued to