Modi and future politics

In 1970, Amartya Sen wrote a paper called "The Dilemma of the Paretian Liberal". He posed the following question: if liberalism exists, can its negative externalities be avoided? He showed that they could not, because removing those negative externalities or minimising them would necessarily mean curbs on liberalism, either voluntary or state-imposed. Liberalism was defined as the complete freedom to choose whatever one wanted to do, including actions that society did not approve of. Prof. Sen also showed that, more often than not, society would end up in situations where liberalism led to everyone being worse off "" including the person whose actions were making it worse off. Narendra Modi's emphatic victory in the Gujarat election illustrates the liberal dilemma perfectly. If one were to divide him into two separate parts "" governance and ideology "" one gets a situation where a trade-off has to be made between the two. Thus, how much of his ideology is the country willing to accept in return for better governance?

This is the question India has to grapple with as Mr Modi begins to make his presence felt on the national political scene. Some would argue that his limitations will ensure that he remain a state-level, regional leader. But the BJP is a national party and he has demonstrated that he has the potential to become its magic wand. It is useful to hark back to the 1990s in this context. The BJP got its first whiff of a chance to rule India, and it faced a dilemma that is not dissimilar to the one it faces now. L K Advani was seen as a hardliner who would not be acceptably to regional allies with substantial numbers of Muslims as voters in their regions. So the moderate Atal Bihari Vajpayee was chosen; the result was that the NDA coalition that took office in 1998. Now the BJP is at a crossroads once again: Mr Advani will lead it in the next general election, and unlike in the nineties, the allies in the NDA now find him acceptable. So how long will it be before Mr Modi moves from being abhorred by most people outside the BJP to being accepted by potential allies of the BJP as someone they can live with?

Time will tell. For the moment, it is possible to put forth two hypotheses, neither mutually exclusive. One is that everyone loves a winner and if Mr Modi is seen as being enough of one, the regional parties will find ways of using him. Politics is about perceptions and compromise and, should the need arise, both could be trotted out. This may or may not involve Mr Modi re-packaging himself, somewhat as Mr Advani has done in the last decade. The other hypothesis is structural in that it involves the fundamental changes that are taking place in Indian society. The argument is that if the economy has moved to the right, how long can politics remain out of sync? In Prof. Sen's terms, if you have fewer constraints on the economy, how long can you function with a greater number of constraints on politics? To the extent that a rightward shift is taken to mean greater freedom of choice, can India really keep non-secular politics off the menu? The middle classes have never been known to be overly bothered about non-consumerist choices. They want efficient services and zero corruption at the lower levels. This is what Mr Modi promises. As the middle class grows, his constituency too will grow. The "negative externalities" will be there, of course, but many may not pay heed to Prof. Sen's conclusion or warning that in the end everyone will be worse off.