The next election

A broad-based coalition would be better to protect dissent and diversity and a cooperative federalism that joins the Centre and the states in shared decision making

We are now entering the last leg of one of the nastiest election campaigns that we have seen in this country. There has been little or no discussion of policies and a virtual absence of any defence of the government’s performance. Instead we have had an endless exchange of invectives, the pointless raking up of the distant past, innuendos and even accusations about the patriotism of the Opponents, character assassination, and all this often on the basis of fake ‘news’, using the anonymity of social media.

Those of us who came of age in the early years of independence have often regretted the loss of civility and restraint in the political discourse.  But what we have seen in this election campaign is a deterioration in the quality of political discourse that is so much worse that it threatens the future of our democracy. Statements by senior politicians categorising a constituency as somehow less appropriate because it consists primarily of minorities is a direct affront to the Constitution. This and other divisive statements challenge the equality of all citizens that underlies the universal franchise and is the very foundation of democracy.

The legitimisation of divisiveness is the greatest danger to the unity of the country. In today’s political discourse differentiation by religion is being promoted by some for narrow political gains. Such differentiation is explicit in the ruling party’s manifesto which focuses on just one religion in the section on cultural heritage.  Tomorrow this differentiation could be extended by some politicians to caste or language or even region.

Another dangerous undercurrent is the argument that the country needs a strong central government with a charismatic leader who can rule in a virtual dictatorial fashion. This is dangerous.  A healthy democracy requires checks and balances in the political process.

The most important balancing dimension in our political structure is the federal system with a multiplicity of parties ruling in different states. The state governments provide an avenue for participation in political power by a wider variety of religious, caste, and ethnic groups. Anything which threatens this rich and diverse federalism is a threat to our democracy. Together the leadership of the state governments is a visible expression of the diversity of our country and a restraint on dictatorial tendencies in the Centre. Thus, in the early years of independence, even under de facto one-party rule, chief ministers like C Rajagopalachari, Govind Ballabh Pant, B C Roy, Ravi Shankar Shukla, B G Kher, and Gopinath Bordoloi were the political equals of Pandit Nehru. This spirit of collegiality and diverse leadership is what we need to recover.

A virtual dictatorship and a divisive political agenda is a threat not just to our democracy and to social harmony but also to our economic prospects. An all-powerful leader with few restraints can do foolish things like demonetisation, which would never have been done had there been effective checks and balances internally within the ruling party and externally in the broader political space. The government at the Centre must also remember that effective executive responsibility for almost all development sectors rests with the states who are becoming more autonomous as each Finance Commission reduces the scope for conditional grants.

The Indian economy now requires a cooperative federalism that joins the Centre and the states in shared decision making as has been done in the case of the GST Council. A coalition government with regional parties becoming part of the Central government is a better guarantor of cooperative federalism. The belief that coalition governments are bad for the economy is questionable judging by the performance of the economy during the three weak coalitions that we have had.[1]

A dictatorial Centre will strengthen the forces of nativism and localism. This will constrain growth by making internal migration more difficult. The ambitious programme for a Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor assumes large-scale migration into the western states. The southern states are fast approaching a demographic phase of low working population growth and will require temporary and permanent in-migration.  But more than that it will feed incipient secessionist sentiments and worsen the political discourse with the states outside the control of the party ruling at the Centre.

We do not know what we are likely to get on May 23.  We all live in echo chambers talking to and hearing people we tend to agree with. The noise from one echo chamber says one thing and from the other echo chamber the exact opposite. Much of this noise is urban even metropolitan.  But the outcome is going to be decided in small towns and villages.  Will these quiet voters be swayed by their economic condition (farmer distress, small trader difficulties), by their caste loyalties or by nationalist sloganeering?

Illustration: Ajay Mohanty

Whatever be the result, the government that comes into power next month will face a difficult economic situation. The state of the Central Government’s finances is not very healthy — a shortfall of Rs 1.6 trillion in revenue relative to the revised estimates for 2018-19, an increase in the deficit for that year from 3.4 per cent to 3.9 per cent and a decline in the tax GDP ratio.  Rising oil prices will put pressure on the current-account deficit, the fiscal deficit, and inflation. A continuation of the US-China trade war will slow down the world economy. In this difficult macroeconomic situation, the new government will be under pressure to deliver on electoral promises of handouts, subsidies, and infrastructure spending and that may well worsen macroeconomic prospects.

The real difference in the consequences of the outcome are in the political space and the answer that the voters give to the divisive agenda. The chances are that we will have a broader coalition than at present, with the present ruling party or, if it does very badly, some other as the dominant partner. In either case the threat to diversity will be attenuated. ‘Flexible’ politicians (and there are many such) will move away from divisive sloganeering and personalised electoral strategies. This is welcome.  But a coalition government will also mean that fresh elections will be considered to be imminent and posturing for elections will continue. This may be a price to pay for keeping democracy and dissent alive. We will have to wait for the real answer from the voters on the India they want for a couple of years till the next election.

[1] Nitin Desai “Coalitions and the Economy”  -- Business Standard, February 18, 2019
 

nitin-desai@hotmail.com