A Prime Minister's job (or a President's, for that matter) is like T-20 game — delirious crowds cheering you one day and the same crowds jeering at you a few days later.

That's because crowds — and I daresay journalists and other busybodies — focus only on the outcome, and not at all on the process by which decisions have to be reached.

But often it is the process that negates the intentions because it can involve several things like existing laws, changing them, public opinion and, of course, political sensitivities, especially in coalitions.

Mathematicians call this sort of final outcome a constrained optimum. But that's just another way of saying that in life what you get is not what you want.

Indeed, nobody wants what finally comes out. Maximalists need to keep this in mind when judging heads of government.

Process vs. Outcome

Two recent and almost perfect examples of this are the outcome of the Anna Hazare protests over the Lokpal Bill and the Teesta river agreement with Bangladesh.

In the former, the Prime Minister seemed totally out of control but, then, he deftly turned the tables on Messrs Hazare, Bedi, Kejriwal and Co by splitting them.

In the Teesta matter, however, he seemed totally in control of the ball, dribbling away nimbly till he got to the goal, when Mamata Banerjee acting goalie, kicked it out of the ground.

In one, the PM got the process right, namely, that only Parliament could legislate. This restored control over the outcome to the politicians (who are like grease: Dirty, slimy but wholly necessary). But, in the other, he got the process wrong — of trying to dribble past his own team mate — and, therefore, the outcome as well.

What one hears about the affair, is very strange indeed. It seems the version of the Teesta agreement shown to Mamata Banerjee was different from what was presented to the Cabinet.

When the Trinamool representative protested, he was shouted down by the same Finance Minister — the very guy who had finessed Messrs Hazare, Bedi, Kejriwal and Co.

If this is true, it is necessary to ask: Did the PM know or was he blind-sided? Who changed the details in the agreement? Why? And, as PM, what is he going to do about it?

What are you up to, boys?

The word in Delhi also is that the Prime Minister now prefers to get more things done by the Cabinet Secretariat than the PMO. There has been a flurry of reform-oriented activity in recent weeks, mostly driven by the former.

These include time-abound action plans for several ministries and detailed reviews of their workings. (But it remains to be seen how effective the follow-up action will be).

One can't blame Dr Singh. He has lightweight Ministers of State, a lame-duck Principal Secretary (or Advisor), a less-than-effective complement of joint secretaries and an out-of-the-loop media advisor.

In a very large measure, the effete PMO is responsible for the Prime Minister's indecisiveness. That is ironic because he always knows what he wants. He also knows how to get it. So why does he put up with blunt instruments?

The Principal Advisor designate, Pulok Chatterji, is expected to join next month. We will have to wait and see if his arrival makes a difference.

He enjoys the complete trust of both the Congress President and the Prime Minister. But how that gets translated into squeezing the most out of an old and inefficient machine of governance remains, as they say in government parlance, a matter for serious concern.

comment COMMENT NOW