Every now and then, there is the revival of this inconclusive debate about leaders across nearly all democracies favouring certain interest groups – and in the process, compromising on policies impacting large sections of the population. There is the inevitable corollary: dark hints of corruption.
This argument is predictably raised by those who are not in power. There are two strong reasons for this: first, they are less sought after by interest groups, since they don’t hold power. Secondly, they can pursue their own brand of rabble-rousing, thereby increasing their relevance.
The argument of favoritism and of bending policies to suit wealthy and powerful interests definitely carries a lot of weight. However, the other side of the discussion has not been much investigated. Let us look at that aspect of the matter.
The broad epitome of the cry-foul lobby is that key people – like, say, the Prime Minister – act very much like politicians and very little like statesmen (the job for which they have been elected). The motive behind this thought process among leaders becomes clearer when we look closely at how a person becomes Prime Minister.
It is the unflagging efforts of the party machinery which puts an individual at that post. Metaphorically, it is the ladder by which the Prime Minister gets to the top. Therefore, that person’s eagerness to keep the party machinery properly oiled and content can be appreciated. No one in his senses will kick away the ladder which has got him to the top, especially while he is still standing on it.
If this logic sounds cynical, it is still ruthlessly true. India has been following democracy for roughly 80 years now. How many independently elected Members of Parliament have taken key cabinet posts (Finance, Defence, Home, External Affairs) in this period? The answer would make for interesting reading. And please note we are not even discussing the Prime Minister’s post. It is simply utopian to imagine an independent MP gracing the post of the Prime Minister.
So, the impetus is more about machinery rather than merit. That being the case, it is reasonable to assume that any national leader will don the hat of the politician most of the time and that of the statesman for less time. So then, we all cry – how do we deal with the matter? Logically speaking, those policies will be best where the interests of the party and the country coincide. It is not as impractical as it sounds. Any government is happy to implement populist policies – the twist is simply in making sure that the nation benefits at the same time.
The defence sector production push, in the past decade or so, is a good example of this. While India’s defense spending has (out of prudence and necessity) risen sharply, production capabilities have also risen drastically, both through the public sector and by pushing private initiatives through PLI and similar schemes. This domestic rise in capabilities has multiple aspects – scale, variety and quality all at the same time. This is discernible in many ways – the rise of India’s defence exports to multiple countries. More than a commercial transaction, a defence sector export agreement signifies a geo-political power negotiation. It also makes India more powerful when negotiating with other parties that want to sell hi-tech equipment to India. Today, France can no longer ignore India’s sincere request to transfer technology when it wants to sell its Rafales.
For all this to be possible, there has to be large-scale investment, which is only the prerogative of a handful of groups in any nation. If, by doing so, the government can be accused of selling out, maybe the absurdity of this accusation can be measured by the alternative. If, instead of the favored few, we assume that Kashmir Emporium or KRIBHCO could bid for the same contracts. Would they have the technical capability, the financial wherewithal, the planning to create an ecosystem, and, finally, the means to generate enough financial clout to negotiate sales with a dozen or more countries? Somewhat unlikely.
Like when Arvind Kejriwal was grumbling about all contracts being delivered to a handful of companies – he was trolled when the contract for a major airport came up. He was told in no uncertain terms that either he finds someone who can cough up the cash, or, if not, let the government do its job.
Coming back to the key issue, most governments depend, directly or indirectly, on corporate structures to get their jobs done across different geosystems and geospheres. Adani Group in ports is a classic example. Globally, each port investment may or may not be a profit center, but it represents a strong India.
The clinching argument is, and will remain, that corporates create jobs directly and indirectly support a feeder system. They do the job that a government is supposed to do – and in the process they sustain themselves. Of course, no corporate sustenance remains at a minimum level. So, there is always the situation that a few fat cats get fatter. Which is what the entire hue and cry is about. But until there is a better alternative, this model has to work.
