The Ordinance Gambit: Strategy Or Tactic?

All in all, Congress must be licking its chops for seemingly executing a neat political strategy. But there could be some deleterious collateral damage lurking in the shadows. It now turns out Manmohan Singh will have to become the fall guy for having persisted with an ordinance that allowed elected legislators with criminal convictions to continue in Parliament.

For those who tuned in late, the Cabinet passed an ordinance on September 24, 2013, called Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013. The ordinance sought to negate a Supreme Court ruling of July 10, which said that legislators would be disqualified immediately if convicted by a court for a sentence of two years or more. The immediate concern for rushing ahead with an ordinance – instead of waiting for Parliament to reconvene – was apparently the imminent sentencing of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav (an important ally for Congress ) and Congress politician Rasheed Masood. The BJP – which was ambivalent initially –  weighed its assets against its criminal liabilities and figured opposing the ordinance made more sense.

Then as suddenly as the ordinance was sprung on an unsuspecting public, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi parachuted into a press conference being addressed by Ajay Maken and announced his displeasure with the ordinance. He called the ordinance “a complete nonsense” and suggested that it be “torn and thrown away!” There was a collective gasp from across the country because this comment was made when the prime Minister was in USA. As soon as he returned, in a show of amazing alacrity, the same Cabinet withdrew the ordinance on October 2. (for a complete chronology of events, read here)

Manmohan Singh & Rahul Gandhi in happier times. Pix courtesy of AFP

What does all this indicate? Here are a few stray thoughts and my take on the entire episode:

* This was a deliberate ploy. It was planned and executed to make Rahul Gandhi come out smelling like roses. The casualty will be the Cabinet members, who are all older than the young party vice-prez. The upshot, as Congress poll managers would want it to appear: the geriatric Cabinet wanted to protect status quo but the vigilant youth forced the change.  This hypothesis seems credible because one suddenly noticed Congress party lightweights, considered to be members of RG’s charmed circle, openly tweeting against the ordinance even before the dramatic press conference (read it here). It seems unlikely that, under normal circumstances, they would have had the gumption to openly criticise an ordinance cleared by the Cabinet. Unless of course they had instructions from somebody senior in the party.

* The party went ahead with the ordinance in the belief that all parties would support it. But, with elections so near, BJP stole some of the television thunder by publicly venting their ire against the ordinance. They even met the President to express their disappointment with the proposed legislation. Public mood seemed to be turning against the ordinance; there were rumblings within other political parties too. Civil society was agitated. Sensing that the mood was turning, Congress must have decided to turn the liability into a show of virtue.

The collateral damage could be Manmohan Singh who comes out of this episode looking rather sheepish and servile. He also emerges as a political relic, charging down the road with a legislation that favoured a venal brand of politics. He is also likely to be branded – subtly of course – as the man who was responsible for wrecking the economy and somebody who now must make way for the impatient and ambitious youth.  This is unfortunate and undeserved for MMS – it's like a bum ride into the sunset for somebody who went through public life with his probity and value system intact.

But there could be one proverbial fly in the ointment – the deliberate slight to Manmohan Singh still raises issues about dynastic politics. This may not go down well with young voters and, as sure as the sun rises from the east, the Opposition isn’t likely to let this opportunity slip away. In the end, it will be interesting to see who and what influences the young finger on the button.

The Political Overlords Of A Violent Underclass

Violence has become Indian society's default template. This is ironic for a country that gained independence from colonial powers by using the politics of non-violence. What is even more appalling is that this violent streak in society is sponsored and patronised.

I wrote an Op-ed piece for The Hindu on the sponsorship for such wanton violence. My piece can be found here: http://goo.gl/z82277

R-Day Ruminations-I: Crime & Politics

Two stories in today’s Times of India need some kind of response.

The first one is about Sonia Gandhi voicing her desire (read original story here) to keep criminals out of politics. She said this at a function to celebrate the diamond jubilee of the Election Commission. At the same event, prime minister Manmohan Singh rued the fact that the best minds don’t want to join politics because of the unruly elements who populate this space. Both – including many others at the celebrations -- have a point and it is interesting to see how they translate this thought into action.

But, just banning criminals might not cleanse the system of its venality. The rot begins with the way the profession is financed. With little or no accountability, most political parties depend on business for their financing. And, a large part of this is in cash. An accountant recently told me that even new generation entrepreneurs who wanted to run transparent and well-governed businesses – especially in manufacturing -- couldn’t help dipping into the shadowy cash economy once in a while to keep greedy politicians and bureaucrats at bay. Pay-offs are hard-wired into the system of approvals, clearances and licences; denial only begets reprisal and redressal mechanisms are way too effete to deliver timely and meaningful justice.

It all starts here. Untrammelled access to such large pools of cash naturally draws in all kinds. One consequence is the large percentage of political sons and daughters inheriting their parents’ mantle. When large sums of money – held through a web of shell companies in India and abroad – are at stake, most politicians are loath to leave this fortune to a political party or to other political (essentially non-family) successors. Merging the political heir and family heir into the same person is a neat arrangement. Here’s another pointer: nobody seems to bat an eyelid when politicians disclose large increases in their wealth despite not having any disclosed sources of income. One politician even ingeniously explained it as gifts from fans!

If they are indeed serious about ridding politics of its goonda elements, then Sonia Gandhi – and hopefully Rahul Gandhi – will have to bring the broom to campaign finance first. The Election Commission has been trying to introduce a semblance of accountability to campaign finance by putting a ceiling on how much each candidate can spend on his or her election campaign. But, this ceiling is observed more in breach for two reasons – one, the candidate’s campaign bills are mostly picked up by someone else and, two, because nobody monitors how much each political party spends at a broader, national level.

The problem that then arises is this: campaign financing doesn’t stop once the election results are announced because election funding is inextricably linked to post-electoral favours in the form of sweetheart deals, land allocation and lopsided government contracts, which then provides a platform for additional future funding. Perhaps, the EC should also play a role in reducing the size of the government and its capacity to influence business investment decisions. I know this is asking the EC to go way beyond its constitutional remit. Plus, one can’t overlook the additional danger of a megalomaniac EC wreaking havoc. But, some institutional mechanism can be devised in conjunction with other constitutional offices (such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India) that works to reduce the multiple government approvals – both at the Centre and the states -- that force businesses to generate unaccounted cash.

Many authors and historians have written that the politics of Sixties and Seventies marked the end of numerous Indian institutions. I hope we are able to witness the rebuilding of some of them in this new decade. That’s also a necessary and sufficient condition to end criminalisation of politics.