The Hindu Business Line : Some risks need to be taken

In a well-ordered polity, administrators avoid risks and politicians grab every opportunity to advance. Left to administrators alone, the country will never win; left to politicians alone, the country will lurch from one misadventure to another. It is only when the talent and aptitude of both politicians and administrators are combined that the nation can make steady progress, says P.V. Indiresan.

RECENTLY, the Indian cricket team had a sufficiently large first innings lead to enforce a follow-on against Australia. But the Indian captain decided to play it safe and surrendered that opportunity to win. This is not the first time that India gave up a chance for victory because of an overriding concern to avoid defeat. Given a choice between victory and avoiding defeat, as a rule, we seem to prefer the latter.

The present NDA Government has never had it so good. It boasts of the highest economic growth rate in decades and there's a feel-good factor all round. Nevertheless, the Government is nervous; it fears that good times may not last long, not even for another six months. That is why it has decided to call for early elections. Its response to good luck is no different from that of our cricket captain.

Government leaders are expected to behave like radars and detect approaching dangers. In the operation of radars, two kinds of errors can occur: The approaching danger may be missed, or a false alarm may be sounded even when there is no danger. It would appear that it would be riskier to miss detecting an approaching danger than sounding a false alarm. Actually, this is not true!

A false alarm is like crying "wolf!" Each time it happens, everyone gets agitated. Enormous tension is created, much energy is wasted. If the false alarm is sounded too often, people will stop taking notice. That is bad because nobody will be ready to face the danger when it actually arrives.

Missing an approaching danger is not so bad: As the danger gets closer and closer, it becomes more conspicuous and will eventually be detected with high certainty. Hence, the cost of failing to detect an approaching danger is only delay, not throwing the entire system out of gear as when a false alarm is sounded. Therefore, typically, radars are allowed to miss targets as often as once in a hundred times, but false alarms are not allowed more than once in a hundred million occasions.

There's a moral behind this design principle for top managers. Top leaders should not get flustered at the possibility of danger. They should keep cool. As it used to be said, they should not start shooting until they see the whites of the eyes of the enemy. Our leaders are different. At the first scent of danger, they retreat. They like to avoid risks at all costs. That is why our country accomplishes comparatively little.

In a well-ordered polity, administrators will avoid risks and politicians will grab every opportunity to advance. Left to administrators alone, the country will never win; left to politicians alone, the country will lurch from one misadventure to another. However, when the talent and aptitude of both politicians and administrators are combined properly, the nation will make steady progress.

When he was Finance Minister at the Centre, Mr T.T. Krishnamachari wanted to look at some income tax files. His secretary, Mr H.N. Ray, declined saying ministers cannot see administrative files. As a concession, Mr Ray offered to go through the files and advise the minister on any policy issue that may have caused concern. Mr Krishnamachari was not amused; he got a cabinet order issued to give ministers access to all administrative files. Since then, our governance has gone downhill steadily.

Even as our politicians interfere with petty administrative details, they have little wisdom to offer on policy issues. Few of them have a profession of their own, and hence, have missed out on the intellectual discipline that professional upbringing inculcates. Practically, none of them has a known source of income either, and yet have extravagant lifestyles. Theirs is a highly leveraged business with practically no capital but large borrowings from promissory notes. Therefore, their operations are highly unstable, they do not know what tomorrow will bring. Stressed as they are, they cannot have a vision for the distant future.

Hence, the case with politicians is the reverse of how radars function. Radars wait coolly until they are reasonably certain there is danger. On the other hand, our politicians live in constant fear of failure. It causes little harm if the radar misses the target because it will soon get another opportunity to cross-check. Politicians do not have that luxury; once they lose they do not get another chance for years, and even then, it may be too late.

Most politicians prefer negative campaigns; few talk of hope and pride, concentrating instead on propagating anger and hatred. Politicians who have spent a lifetime criticising each and everything cannot suddenly change their mindset. They are more comfortable finding faults than in rectifying them; they do not dream of economic progress.

Right now, there is ample proof that the electorate is tired of empty criticism, that it is more interested in economic welfare than in carrying on a vendetta against others. Yet, opposition parties are still banking on the divisive politics of Mandal; the Government too is reluctant to give up Mandir. There are four fundamental reasons why politicians are more comfortable with negative policies than with positive ones. One, there is no minimum qualification for legislators.

There is no remedy for this: any attempt to introduce even the mildest restriction on those contesting elections will be drowned in a flood of demagoguery about democratic freedom.

Two, legislators have little or no work to do. They enjoy considerable powers, both overt and covert, but bear few responsibilities. Few of them attend to legislative business, let alone work for the welfare of their constituents. The Devil, it is said, finds work for idle hands to do. That is the case with our legislators.

Three, once elected, legislators need fear no competition for several years, till it is time for the next election. There is no continuous check on their performance. Hence, once they get elected, legislators have a monopoly on power with all its attendant disadvantages.

Four, unlike in the case of radars, the cost of missing an election victory is enormous. At the same time, winning even by crooked means carries little or no penalty.

These problems are not peculiar to India, they bedevil all democracies. We need a reform that will (a) confer an electoral advantage on the competent; (b) keep legislators continuously busy; and, (c) introduce a competitive check on the activities of legislators continuously and not merely at election times.

In theory, legislators are expected to look after the welfare of their constituents. In practice, there is no formal mechanism by which they can do so even if they are sincere about it. At the most, they can write to the minister concerned or raise a question in the legislature. Either way, it is a tenuous process that takes a long time and fails to provide the desired relief and certainly not as often as it is required.

Here is a possibility to keep legislators busy doing good work. Suppose they are formally made the focal point of redressing all citizens' grievances, particularly in the case of public goods and services and for which few citizens have the resources to take on the government. Then, the legislator becomes the de jure prosecutor in all cases of citizen complaints against government services. The Constituency Development Fund that legislators get at present may be converted as a fee for the legal services they will now render.

Currently, legislators do help but not in a formal legal sense. They use their influence rather than the letter of the law. The use of influence is generally harmful: It is secretive; it helps favourites only; it undermines the Rule of Law. On the other hand, when legislators are made legal interlocutors whose services the voters have a right to demand, the situation changes: Everyone gets equal entitlement; the operation takes place in open courts; the Rule of Law is upheld.

Further, it would help to include not only the winner in the elections but also the runner-up, who may be made authorised legal counsel on behalf of the citizens. Then, the citizens have a choice and the legislator has competition. Success in elections will not depend on a few weeks' campaign but on the service provided over long years. Only those who are professionally competent and sincere can hope to succeed. Not just legislators but their immediate opponents too will be kept busy. There will be less opportunity for the Devil to make use of either of them.

Will this scheme be like belling the cat? Not necessarily. Every candidate who came second in the elections will support the idea. Pressure from such candidates may, someday or other, make this idea a reality.

(Concluded)

[This is 115th in the Vision 2020 series. The previous article was published on January 12.]

(The author is former Director, IIT Madras. Response may be sent to indresan@vsnl.com)

More Stories on : Economy | Politics | Vision 2020

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Tragedy at Srirangam

Pricing urea

Globalisation revisited

Some risks need to be taken

Facing up to risk of terrorism

Cancun: A start for developing countries

Importance of the FIIs

Borrowing cost

Farm sector

Social security