Are several senior ministers stepping down? In an echo of the Kamaraj Plan of 1963, are they choosing to leave a moribund government for an all-powerful party? Are those out of favour being forced out by a newly assertive prime minister or an angry Congress president? In the absence of any real developments, the answers to all these questions are a mixture of rumour and conjecture, not the stuff of news. However, it is to be hoped that there is a little substance to all this speculation — for the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), coming up to its third anniversary, cannot afford to allow itself to drift for much longer. The costs of its ineptitude and paralysis have been great for its political capital and its leaders’ stature, and even greater for India as a whole.
It is not just that the macroeconomic environment has been comprehensively mismanaged, as pointed out later in these columns. Individual sectors too have been allowed to decay, have been forced to move backwards, or have had their natural growth constricted. The power sector is a mess that’s not been helped by the increased interest from the Prime Minister’s Office. Will the power minister be held accountable? Coal India, which feeds the power sector, has seen output stutter. Will the coal minister be found wanting? The foreign ministry has lowered India’s stature by responding with agility to every petty obsession of the domestic media. Will the foreign minister be put on notice? The answer to all these questions, in a well-functioning government, should be in the affirmative.
However, to the important principle of ministerial accountability, the UPA has added a twist. Problems have been kicked further up the power structure. The prevalence of groups of ministers (GoMs) and empowered groups of ministers (EGoMs) is understandable in that the Cabinet has become an unwieldy location for much decision-making — and, in a coalition, it is one of the few ways to reduce ministerial discretion and force consultation. However, GoMs have served to dilute accountability. Many ministers can point to dubious decisions as having the imprimatur of a GoM. Many of the problems of this government, indeed, can be traced to an over-reliance on GoMs — not just a lack of accountability, but endless delays in decision-making. The UPA’s leaders might be tempted, therefore, to sit back while this consultation-heavy process continues, allowing its ministers to stay the course. That is not enough. Not only can the UPA not allow any further delays in the effort to repair its tattered reputation, but the principle of accountability itself must be restored. The dependence on GoMs must be reduced, and ministers cannot be allowed to use GoM decision-making as an excuse. And the drafting of new blood into UPA-II, hopefully more reform-minded and active, must not be delayed further.
