Opinion Lessons in inclusion

The state is also under tremendous pressure to ensure that power becomes a “productive force”. The term as conceptualised by several Western philosophers is complex; closer home,the notion of productive force has come to be viewed in sharply differing ways across the political spectrum.

Broadly,the term “productive force” would mean that which seeks to give a sense of identity,order and capacity to the people at large. The difference lies in understanding what would be needed to operationalise it.

For instance,in the wake of liberalisation,the attempt by the government to radically alter the existing delivery mechanism — through smart cards,direct cash transfer,among others — of public goods and services may perhaps be seen as an enabling force in the sphere of economics.

India’s rise in the global economic order has driven the state and the ruling political elite to create new structures and institutions which enable power to flow productively through the entire system.

Take the UPA government at the Centre and its attempt to give a unique identity to all its citizens. Is it possible to see this as an attempt at creating a structured existence for its citizens? Of course,this process is not easy as the record of the state in trying to maximise the productivity of power has been abysmal over the decades. This is manifested in the massive corruption at all levels of interface between government bodies and citizens.

It is often asked why in Western societies citizens face virtually no corruption while procuring a driving licence or a passport. The reason for this can perhaps be traced to the fact that those industrial societies have,through a long-drawn-out political churn,already made a transition from feudal to democratic order and created a grid of productive power systems largely accessible to all.

In an overarching context when we examine the idea of power as a productive force in India,what is the picture that emerges? India has been going through a severe churn over the decades in which the ruling political class has tried,and often failed,to turn power into a productive force. Jawaharlal Nehru worked on the idea of an “enlightened” bureaucracy through which the productive potential of power could be pursued to bring about some social and economic equality and order. Of course,that top-down experiment failed partly because the Congress party itself was a coalition of such powerful vested interests that fundamental ideas such as land reforms remained a dream.

Decades later,his grandson Rajiv Gandhi attempted a most ambitious bottom-up transformation of the productivity of the power system through new,decentralised panchayati raj institutions. The jury is still out on how successful these institutions have been in bringing about better and more equitable governance in the country.

From Nehru to Rajiv Gandhi,and now to Sonia Gandhi,the Congress has been grappling with the question of how to ensure that power actually becomes productive for society,and in turn also improves the political fortunes of the party. The Gandhi family is yet to find a firm answer to this. In fact,the shrinking political base of the Congress over the past few decades is a sign that this question is too complex to be fathomed by the grand old party.

In fact,some of the regional political leaders appear to be using power as a productive force more effectively than the Congress at the Centre. The relative success of Nitish Kumar and Mayawati in expanding their political base over the years is a case in point. They have managed to establish a gut connect with their voters and have provided them the comfort that power will be used to create appropriate institutions which are productive socially and economically.

There is an element of trust involved here. It is not for nothing that non-upper-caste leaders are better equipped to deliver on key political economy reforms. This is because they enjoy the implicit trust of their voters and therefore are able to use power as a productive force much more effectively. So when Nitish Kumar talks about direct cash transfer as a means to deliver social programmes,the Bihar electorate actually believes his sincerity of purpose. When the Congress says it will deliver government subsidies and other social goods through “new” institutions such as the UID,there appears to be some scepticism largely because of a legacy of failures.

So when Pranab Mukherjee talks about transforming the way the UPA government will work in future,he is not referring to the nuts and bolts of social and economic efficiencies. He is perhaps articulating an idea and a hope that the Congress party is still looking to create new institutional structures which substantially enhance the productivity of power through inclusive means — and thereby bring the much needed boost to the party.

The writer is Managing Editor,‘The Financial Express’,

mk.venu@expressindia.com