State of the Centre

It should be noted that the present coalition is led by the Congress, which on its own has only about 140 seats in the Lok Sabha. The coalition was forged, or cobbled, precisely because no single party could form the government with a majority of its own. Parties, regional or national in character, have their own ideologies. The formation of a coalition in the post-election phase does not mean that the constituent parties surrender their ideologies or special interests and agree to follow, mutatis mutandis, all the objectives of the coalition leader. All that the coalition partners commit themselves to doing is to agree on a common minimum programme, which presumably is not in direct conflict with the aims and objectives of any partner. Just because parties have joined a coalition will not necessarily mean that they surrender their entire personalities to the coalition leader. By the same token, a party with 140-odd seats cannot expect to usher in major policy changes, in disregard of the considerations of the other coalition partners, not to speak of the opposition! To have unfettered ability to push through major policy measures, it is a requirement of democracy that a party should have absolute majority. Unfortunately this is not the case now. It will, therefore, be inappropriate for the Congress to blame its coalition partners. After all, what is seen as “reform” by one party may not be seen as such by all the others, whether they are partners or not.

It would have been ideal to have a two- or three-party system of governance at the Centre. Unfortunately the political system that has evolved does not make for this. There is much unprincipled practice of petty politics as has been displayed by all concerned in the decades after independence. Splitting of parties, opportunistic desertions, horse-trading, vote-bank politics, surrender of ideologies for petty gains, and the like, have all been displayed by various parties at various times. Many observers have suggested diverse solutions — single transferable votes, a presidential form of government, ban on post-poll alliances, and the like. The fact is the entire political system looks for opportunistic advantages at all times. Astonishingly, the Venkatachellaiah Commission had pronounced, not too long ago, that our Constitution is perfect. Clearly this is not so.

One must also remember that a parliamentary democracy is alien to the Indian experience in recent centuries. For the 250 years or so prior to independence, we had practically a presidential form of government, with the viceroy, and earlier the governor-general, playing the lead. In the previous 250 years or so, it was a dictatorship that ruled us, some times benevolently. Thus parliamentary democracy, as it obtained in the British Isles in the mid-20th century, and which we imposed upon ourselves, is alien to Indian instinct and methods of governance. We are still learning and innovating and, in the process, have not covered ourselves with glory. Some rethinking is essential to explore better governance systems in the country.

The PM also had lamented that narrow considerations exhibited by some regional parties have prevented “reforms” from being pushed through. Probably what he had in mind related to financial sector reforms. It may well be true that many of these reforms may be extremely useful, even though there could be some legitimate questions about others. However, the CMP envisages a whole series of reforms, which clearly could be implemented with huge beneficial results. No doubt, the CMP sounds very much like the elegantly worded manifestos of many parties in the past, and is also very similar to the CMPs of earlier coalitions. But there are still plenty of urgently needed reforms inherent therein. Corruption as a cancer is spreading. The education sector is crying out for reform; primary education systems are in a shambles in much of north India. India is at the bottom of the international league in public health. Our judicial system requires a major overhaul to sharply improve the speed of decision-making. All of these ought to have been tried in a serious manner.

That most of these falls in the state sector, and are primarily in the domain of the states for action, does not absolve the Centre of taking major initiatives, creating benchmarks and triggering massive transformation. In a country that is predominantly poor, these are the priority reforms, which no coalition partner is likely to oppose; if one opposes, it should be shown up in public.

While reforms are urgent, India will wait for them. The real reform will take place only when our politics gets reformed and proper governance systems are put in place; not in form but in genuine substance. At the time of Independence, when Indian politicians replaced Whitehall as India’s rulers, our Constitution framers, who had otherwise done a wonderful job, didn’t perceive the need for checks and balances on the political class. Many of our governance problems stem from this flaw. India is an eternal country. The Indian will wait for change till inevitably the political class will get reformed. The prime minister, who is a very decent man, need not be too impatient.

The writer was cabinet secretary to the GOI between 1996 and 1998