The Hindu Business Line : Yearning for authentic governance

India's stark socio-economic disparities have many causes, one of which could be the high modal income ratio. The difference in incomes between those employed in the government sector and those outside is among the highest in the world. These striking disparities point to the need for a re-examination of the quality of the `engagement' between the ordinary people and the government, says G. Ramachandran.

THE Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, will hoist the national flag at the historic Red Fort to mark the nation's 58th Independence Day and the completion of 57 years of self-rule. The occasion, the setting and the circumstances may offer Dr Singh the opportunity to ponder two questions of importance to the national economy. Have these years of self-rule somehow been years of selfish rule in which the government sector and the public sector have thrived at the cost of ordinary citizens? Have India's government sector and public sector become the new colonial masters whose economic interests dominate those of ordinary citizens?

The Prime Minister has been a successful captain of the central bank and a high-impact chief financial officer of the nation. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the following empirical data will draw his attention.

India's per capita annual income is about $500, higher than that of 40 countries. But the most frequently observed income or `modal' income is less than $100. Most Indian households are, in absolute terms, the poorest in the world. That is the bottom-line result of relevance to ordinary people.

Nevertheless, households that derive incomes from India's government and public sector (the government sector hereafter) are at least five times better off than all other households. The ratio of modal incomes in the government sector to modal incomes in the private sector (the modal income ratio hereafter) is 5.08, the highest in the world.

Three examples illustrate why India's modal income ratio is so high. A driver in the government sector earns on average eleven times as much a driver outside the government sector.

Government sector office clerks earn at least nine times as much as their counterparts outside the government sector, and data-entry operators at least six times as much. It is easy to see why Indian households that earn incomes from employment in the government sector are the richest relative to ordinary people.

India's stark socio-economic disparities have many causes. The high modal income ratio could be one of the probable causes. The difference in incomes between those employed in the government sector and outside the government sector is among the highest in the world. From such a perspective, the stark socio-economic disparities point to the need for a re-examination of the quality of the `engagement' between the ordinary people on the one side and the government on the other.

It appears reasonable to assume that the principal empirical data on incomes — the high modal income ratio of 5.08 — in the government sector and outside will have an impact on how India will be governed in the future. The high modal income ratio of 5.08, it is hoped, will `inform' how the government sector engages itself with the economic aspirations of ordinary people and, therefore, the nation's aggregate economic activities.

Three classes of engagement

Government's engagement with the governed may be classified into authoritarian, authentic or ritualistic engagement. In authoritarian engagement, government uses its powers comprehensively and often unilaterally to pursue `its' goals regardless of how such pursuit affects the economic and social well-being of the general public. Authoritarian engagement may not necessarily be detrimental to the economic and social well-being of ordinary people. Economies and societies may indeed become very prosperous.

Right-wing dictatorships are excellent examples of authoritarian engagement in this context. But authoritarian engagement may turn into systematic repression and exclusion of the weaker classes and, therefore, into rebellion later if government and the governed have goals and agendas that no longer coincide.

In ritualistic engagement, government typically refrains from using its powers comprehensively and constructively. It is content to maintain status quo. It avoids discontinuity and abhors any break from tradition. It sees itself as the upholder of set methods and then depends on ritualistic processes to secure adherence to these set methods.

Ritualistic engagement typically elicits passive compliance by both government and the governed. For example, people will not drive into oncoming traffic in a one-way street if policemen are on duty but would disobey all traffic rules when policemen are not on duty. The emphasis is on `not getting caught doing the wrong thing' but it is acceptable to `do the wrong thing for any private gain as long as the doer does not get caught'.

Hence, there is little that is deeply and enduringly constructive at the core of ritualistic engagement except the ritual itself. The thrust is on adhering to the ritual without any emotional involvement in the outcomes. Marking 100-per-cent attendance in office could turn into a ritual if such attendance does not require 100-per-cent attentiveness to the tasks on hand.

By contrast, authentic engagement involves the comprehensive and constructive use of powers by a government but seldom in any unilateral manner. The comprehensive and constructive use of powers is uncompromisingly aimed at pursuing those goals that are important to the aggregate economy and to the economic and social well-being of the general public.

When government is involved in an authentic engagement with the governed, it is not afraid to cause discontinuity aimed at enhancing the economic and social well-being of the general public. It does not abhor any break from tradition.

Authentic engagement leads to deep, enduring and constructive goals. The thrust is on the desired outcomes. Therefore, authentic engagement usually elicits an emotional involvement in the desired outcomes. It elicits trust and awe in the context of the methods and desired results. No one shirks; everyone is ready to wade into purposeful action! Marking 100-per-cent attendance in office may well be irrelevant in the context of being 100-per-cent attentive to the tasks on hand and their objectives.

Quite clearly, authentic engagement is the 'first class' of the three classes of engagement. The occasion, the setting and the circumstances pertinent to the Prime Minister's address to the nation may offer an opportunity for the re-examination of whether Indians are involved in an authentic engagement or ritualistic engagement.

Message from Kolkata

When authentic engagement is turned on, life begins to resemble Kolkata's Eden Gardens as it presented itself on November 24, 1993. Sachin Tendulkar, a cricket player of considerable capabilities and repute, bowled his only over but the last over of the innings to beat South Africa in the semi-finals of the Hero Cup. His extraordinary effort took India into the final match against the West Indies, which India would win days later.

The awed spectators stayed late into the night in the stadium and long after the game was over. They lit torches in admiration of a heroic effort. It did not matter to them that they would be reaching home very late. They were involved - grippingly but voluntarily - in an authentic engagement!

The same spectators booed the Indian cricket team back into the Eden Gardens pavilion on March 13, 1996 when they thought that the team showed no signs of an authentic engagement and all the signs of a ritualistic engagement. It made no difference to them that Mr Tendulkar made the highest score against the rivals.

The message from Kolkata is that ordinary people are extraordinarily perceptive about what class of engagement is `on'. They may choose to laud authentic engagement overtly but may be too afraid to overtly boo and shout off ritualistic engagement. Nevertheless, they can make out the difference.

When the weaker and the disenfranchised classes are exposed to ritualistic engagement, they may politely and timidly disengage themselves from all further social and economic activity.

For a while they may fake their engagement to please as well as to deceive the establishment. From such a perspective, the greatest danger that India faces is the decision by millions to fake their engagement before they disengage themselves from India's future.

(The author is a financial analyst. Feedback may be sent to indiagrow@yahoo.com)