Last week in a conversation triggered by
Yogi Adityanath's style of governance by fiat, a colleague argued that
India cannot function with the liberal democratic system. It needs a
dose of authoritarian rule to transform itself.
There
is little doubt that if the country were to hold a referendum today,
the result would favour those who will accept curbs on freedom of our
precious freedoms of speech and action as a necessary sacrifice for
economic growth.
There is one problem
with this model. Prime Minister Naerndra Modi, and now, the Yogi, may be
paragons among leaders - honest, deeply committed to the nation and
enormously hard-working.
But
they are neither gods nor supermen. They cannot themselves administer
every department they oversee, nor ensure that there are excesses
committed in the name of the policies they advocate.
Nationalism
Implementing Modi or Yogi's stern pronouncements depend on a capable bureaucracy or a dedicated party organisation.
Yogi and Modi cannot themselves
administer every department they oversee, nor ensure that there are
excesses committed in the name of the policies they advocate.
There
are two ways to achieve that goal - one is to have a governmental
system populated with people with their own qualities down the line from
the secretariats to city municipalities and village panchayats.
But,
the Indian bureaucratic culture until now has been associated with
inefficiency, corruption and lassitude. It can change, but only slowly
and over a period of time.
The other
option is to rely on party cadre. In that sense the BJP government is
well endowed. The party and its mentor organisation, the RSS are a
cadre-based outfits with committed and dedicated personnel.
Whether
they intend to, or can provide, expertise in building a modern state is
another matter. What seems to drive them is cultural nationalism - gau
raksha, vegetarianism, re-writing history text books, promoting
traditional medicine and so on.
The big problem with authoritarian systems
of the type that my colleague envisages is that they choke off feedback
loops. It is possible to use all kinds of mechanisms like town hall
meetings and the social media to know what the public is thinking.
But
over time, it's clear, this simply doesn't work resulting in explosive
revolts leading to a great deal of death, disruption and destruction.
Perhaps the best example of a contemporary
authoritarian system is China. The Communist Party of China, currently
some 121 million strong, runs everything there, the state, every school,
university, municipality, all the big industry, indeed, even the
Chinese military is actually an arm of the Party, rather than Chinese
state.
So, the best and the brightest, if they want to flourish, must become part of the party system.
This
system has achieved a great deal - it has transformed China from a poor
Third World Country into one which is seeking to emerge as the
pre-eminent world power.
But in the process, it has also committed great crimes, leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people.
Legitimacy
Under
Xi Jinping, the CPC is seeking to reinvent itself as the party that
will lead to China's rejuvenation as the world's foremost power. But it
is acutely aware of the fact that it sits atop a vast corrupt system
where there is little justice for the average person.
He/she
cannot move across China and settle down where they will, they cannot
get justice because the party is the prosecutor and judge and its
functioning opaque.
It walls off China's internet and strictly controls the flow of ideas in the educational system and media.
History
shows that as countries like Japan, Portugal, Spain, Israel, Greece,
South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore transited from the middle-income to
high-income levels in the 1960s and 1970s, they also shed authoritarian
rule and became democracies.
Middle income China confronts this dilemma
today. The CPC may not acknowledge it openly, but it faces a crisis of
legitimacy. Having achieved middle-class status, people also want a say
in their own governance and liberty of thought and action.
Besides,
there are the intangibles that democracy delivers in terms of its
cultural eco-system where entrepreneurship and innovation flourish.
India, of course, is an exception
being poor and a democracy, though it is, as historian Ramchandra Guha
says, an 'election-only' democracy.
Stability
India,
of course, is an exception being poor and a democracy, though it is, as
historian Ramchandra Guha says, an 'election-only' democracy. So does
it require a dose of authoritarian rule to transit to a middle-income
economy?
Many in India would argue
that it does. The Modis and Yogis are looked up to because they have an
authoritarian streak, but their problem is that they do not have the
large numbers of administrators and managers who can get this system to
work at higher levels of efficiency.
On
the other hand, they have a large team of raucous cadre who are
undermining the already fragile social stability and rule of law in the
country.
Mail Today, 23 April 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment