See how they limp

Conventional wisdom: it is wrong for lameduck or caretaker governments to take policy decisions. A new government with a new mandate is to follow, and they must not preempt its decisions. That, as far as it goes, is right. But it is a logic designed for ordinary democratic practice where elections take place at regular and relatively long intervals, constitutionally defined. The presumption is that inaction of a few months every five years or so is a fair price to pay for democratic fairness. In practice, outgoing Indian governments long hustled through their favourite policies, gave out freebies to charm the voter and appointed their own men to crucial jobs. The reaction to this extreme impropriety came with the Election Commission’s model code of conduct for governments and political parties. Alas, the spirit of that move has been overshadowed by the notion of rigid adherence to its letter. The result is governmental rigor mortis, disastrous in a country which seems destined to see many caretaker governments in coming months.

Rapid change has been afoot in the Indian polity. A second election looms in the space of two years. A third in another year or two on may come as no surprise. That would mean three caretaker governments in three or four years. If caretaker lameduckness is faithfully observed, that means a too-long period of paralysis in government. Propriety has to be observed, but it has to be pursued with a sense of proportion, of costs as well as benefits. Instead, missives fly out from the cabinet secretary’s office directing a virtual standstill to government. An already suffering economy is left to its own devices. There is such fear of violating the code that everyone simply sits tight or, if not, becomes fair game for a "controversy". It is time to hit the middle ground. Processes set in motion by a government before it fell should be allowed to go on, unless they were controversial in the first place. Certainly, such an approach will not be possible to judge in black and white. But politics is complex. New appointments should indeed be a no-no for outgoing governments, for they almost always represent moves by politicians to oblige their men or plant them in important positions. So should be a handing out of election bounty. Controversial projects, where there is room for suspecting wrongdoing, and major new policy initiatives — these must be eschewed. But things on which the government had let its mind be known, to obvious public approval or at least to no outcry, should proceed. Opposition parties have an inherent disincentive against allowing this, but basic administration has to go on, election or no election. In allowing such a flexible approach, there will certainly be room for mischief. But the Election Commission is still there to prevent a genuine and gross violation of the model code, such as the handing around of election freebies to voters. The point is not that caretaker governments should be free to do what they want in their last days. It is that the Election Commission itself should be sensible to make a distinction between theoretical objections to decision-making — some of which harm the country without aiding democracy — and actions that genuinely detract from clean democratic practice.