Of course it matters who ultimately wins the elections and gets to form the government. I disagree with the view expressed by some commentators (including in this newspaper) that, whatever the new dispensation, it will be forced to meet the current economic problems head-on. The threat of an external ratings downgrade or censure by foreign investors might not be enough to keep a new government on the straight and narrow if we do not have a strong leadership. Thus, the potential for further damage to the economy remains. Wasn't it John Galbraith who once remarked that incompetent politicians are, in a miraculous contravention of the laws of physiology and physics, capable of kicking their own asses out of the door?
That said, I would argue that the run-up to the elections is far more refreshing than previous elections. Instead of the vacuous "naarebazi" and feverish vote-bank appeasement that we have come to associate with elections, we now have a set of more substantive economic and political alternatives to choose from. What is equally important is that these alternatives are backed by local experiments. The results of some of these experiments are known; others have just begun. I believe that these emerging trends - rather than a credit rater's raised eyebrow - will remain alive and will influence Indian politics and policy in the years to come.
Let me talk about some of the experiments that I referred to earlier and start with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) model. I do not know whether it will survive in its current avatar or how it will fare in the general elections. However, I am reasonably convinced that its core model will survive and it is worth our while to analyse it dispassionately without getting distracted by recent events.
I see three related strands in this model. First, it represents what I would refer to - somewhat incorrectly perhaps if one listens to the purists - as "post-politics". This, in theory, rejects the idea of going by established ideological positions in dealing with problems, following instead a "make it up as you go along" approach to solving problems as they come along. In this sense, "post-politics" is different from the Tea Party movement in the United States or some of the extreme right-wing parties like Marine le Pen's National Front in France. These come with their own ideological baggage and their own reading of history - the Tea Party movement, for instance, claims to hark back to the US Constitution as the founding fathers envisaged it. The "post-political" doctrine has little or no room for history.
The second strand consists of a more participative (for the citizens) process of governance, or "direct democracy" if you like. This is not to say that this is a radically new idea. In Delhi itself, the Sheila Dikshit government introduced programmes like the Bhagidari system with considerable success. However, the new model wants to take it much further and seek continuous feedback and vetting by the public. Of course, this has its problems. A "majoritarian" direct democracy model can work well when it comes to decisions regarding public goods. Should the government have held the Commonwealth Games or used a fraction of the money spent on the CWG to improve sports facilities for the underprivileged? The majority rule has obvious problems when it potentially impinges on the rights of a minority group. However, direct democracy need not always work on the "majority wins" principle. There can be an attempt to build consensus on issues by involving stakeholders.
It is critical, however, that the process actually involves all the stakeholders and is not just based on a selective and convenient sample. There is another risk. Direct democracy would tend to favour short-term populist decisions if the citizen-respondents are not informed enough of the potential costs in the long term. For a robust participative model to work, citizens need to be informed of both the costs and the benefits of a decision they choose to vet or reject.
The received wisdom is that this form of decision making cannot apply to national security policy or economic policy. I would agree that national security policy involves both an understanding of history and diplomatic sensitivities that the common man does not entirely understand. However, when it comes to economic policy, there is certainly more room for a more inclusive debate. This need not involve a door-to-door survey of all households; what is needed is just a patient hearing to key stakeholders in a decision.
I am, for one, getting increasingly tired of this "I worked for a multilateral agency for a few years so I know better" variety of economic policy that has come to dominate. It is, for instance, a pity that our discourse on fighting inflation - and attendant interest rate policy - has almost completely excluded Indian industry, dismissing it as a bunch of venal profiteers who care only for growth.
The third strand is the "anti-corruption" tirade that forms the central theme. This is, in essence, a bottom-up effort to remove rent-seeking by the government and make it an efficient service provider for citizens. This could reap some dividend, but it has to be accompanied by top-down institutional reforms that strike at the heart of an edifice that has for years supported a paternalistic "mai-baap sarkar". At this stage, in their obsession to show visible change at the ground level, the AAP model seems to overlook the challenges of large-scale systemic change.
Finally a word on the so-called "Gujarat model" of development, another experiment in what a deep commitment to industrialisation and good governance can deliver. Some analysts have raised questions about its replication to other parts of the country. Others have asked whether it is simply a model of efficient governance without a deeper economic blueprint. However, if one thinks through it carefully, it embeds a deep and intuitive understanding that a sharp increase in manufacturing is imperative for sustainable and inclusive (employment-creating) growth. In this prognosis of India's fundamental problem, Narendra Modi is in the company of some of the finest economists (Anne Krueger comes to mind). A commitment to ramp up manufacturing could be a positive "game-changer" for the economy. I wish Mr Modi would communicate this aspect of his economic philosophy a little more.
The writer is with HDFC Bank.
These views are personal
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
