Shuffles over reshuffle

Now that the war talk has calmed, there are unmistakable signs of a return of politics. The prospect of a major cabinet reshuffle, avidly sp...

Now that the war talk has calmed, there are unmistakable signs of a return of politics. The prospect of a major cabinet reshuffle, avidly speculated about before the tensions on the border swamped everything else, is again working up a fine fever. It8217;s almost tangible 8212; the lobbying, jostling, flattering, wheedling, manoeuvring and positioning in the Capital in anticipation of the rewarding, adjusting, accommodating, placating and snubbing on D-day. There are some specific posers as well: is the finance minister 8216;out of danger8217; yet again or will he finally lose his job this time, to a candidate of the saffron swadeshi lobby, perhaps? Will the Trinamool chief8217;s patient wait for a cabinet berth be rewarded at last? Will the Gujarat chief minister8217;s life be made easier by ensuring that a troublesome satrap remains confined to the Centre? There are no answers yet. But to those willing to look a little closer, the questions that have been doing the rounds tell a disturbing tale.

Over the years, it has become normal and natural for ministerial reshuffles/expansions to be used by the powers that be to send out messages of a particular kind. Changes are made not so much to enhance the credibility and efficiency of the ministry, to help the government to better deliver the goods. They are made, mostly, to pander to a host of other considerations. To shore up the ruling arrangement8217;s numbers by pleasing a bristling ally. To show everybody who is the real boss within a divided party organisation. To please a political ally that is wearing its unhappiness over the division of spoils on its sleeve. To preempt future dissidence. To enhance the prospects of the party in an impending round of state elections. In each of these scenarios, the criterion is not merit. In each, performance is an extraneous consideration.

This is not to say that there can be a conception of merit that is entirely quarantined from realpolitik. It is not to insist on banishing politics from a political exercise. Of course, there will be pressures from within the party, from allied parties and even from outside the ruling arrangement, and they will be most forcefully brought to bear on ministerial reshuffles. In the era of split verdicts, these imperatives have acquired a new edge. It is understandable, then, that a cabinet reshuffle should be an act of negotiation rather than a decision. But having said that, a crucial question persists. When all is said and done, what is the main motivating force of such an exercise? Surely it must be a conception of the public interest. Governments should, ultimately, learn to address the people.