Social Media and the Illusion of a New Dynamic in Elections

The general elections that will be held soon has an interesting syncretism. It is the most scrutinised, followed and debated general elections till date for obvious non-political reasons. The age of social media has meant that a large section of the population who already had an opinion now have the means to express, debate and discuss these opinions. This should have meant better focus on priority areas, better questioning of candidates and political parties thus calling their bluff and separating facts from rhetoric.

This brings me to the second element of this mixture- greater discussion and scrutiny has not lead to better questioning but only blind gobbling up of rhetoric and vitriol dished out by politicians from every side. An honest analysis of their actions till date is completely absent, they are not asked any questions and so they control the narrative while social media merely becomes a platform for propaganda and campaigning. Although technology has provided us the means to change the entire process, we are only using it to follow the old process of one-way communication. Television and Newspaper outlets are only interested in endless debate amongst themselves on pointless poll predictions, catchphrases and anchor-led outrage. But it clearly satisfies our desperate need to participate, engage and express our opinion even if it makes little difference in what policies are pursued by the next government.

The elections are less than two months away and no party has a clear road map for the country in any area. Apart from broad and vague terms like empowerment, strong leadership, unity, inclusive growth etc I have not heard of a clear plan. I hear about visions and goals but that too in vague terms. I have not heard anyone speak of improving learning outcomes in schools, no one speaks of improving India's abysmal performance in Research and Development. How do they intend to balance environment protection & economic growth? What are the plans for increasing agricultural productivity, wages and addressing deterioration of land and water quality? What is the stand on climate change? What to do about infrastructure bottlenecks that is the obvious reason for India's failing growth miracle? Foreign affairs has never been an election issue in India and so those who speak about a vision for India have nothing to say on India's relations with China, USA, Latin America and multilateral bodies. Skill development is fine but how to achieve it when existing schools, colleges and universities are badly managed, seen as only cash cows by private owners and students pass out with degrees that have less value than the paper on which their certificates are printed?

A popular area of "vision" is governance with each party claiming governance as its own great strength. But I do not hear anything on devolution of powers to urban local bodies, improving their funding and functioning, I hear nothing about solving the conflict of authority in each urban area that has a municipality, a district administration, a development authority, state government control and on top of it all dependent on central government for funds, permission and development activities! A case in point is my own district of Ernakulam where constructing the Metro required permission from the centre- a permission that came almost immediately after the Congress led government came to power in the state although the project was being mooted for over 4 years during which the estimated cost almost doubled- funds from the state, centre and external loans. Right now, traffic congestion is worse than ever but alternate routes have not been developed or are under developed since no one knows who should do it- DMRC the metro constructors, state government, development authority or the municipality!

Of course, these are not stuff that a single legislator can deal with and will require the government to do it. So shouldn't atleast parties come out with answers for these issues? Shouldn't those hoping to and with highest probability of forming the next government take the initiative in addressing these concerns? The funniest thing is that it is not clear whether this is an issue for municipal, state or central elections. This election is supposed to be one where urban and young voters will make a difference. How is their participation supposed to make a difference when the vote is not a well-considered decision but one based on a lot of misinformation, rhetoric, vitriol and obfuscation?

Elections used to be and will continue to be decided on the basis of old allegiances to caste, religion and rhetoric because we have not found any other grounds to "fight" an election. Money and muscle power will still be decisive factors while social media's role, no matter how far it is hyped up by technocrats or aspiring leaders, will be limited to mere one-way channels. Politician's are not willing to layout a set of goals, plans to achieve them, measurement criteria and guarantee that if they fail due to lack of effort, they will resign. The clear map, objectives and guidelines laid down by the Millennium Development Goals prove that it is possible to back up a vision with clearly defined objectives, intermediate targets and measurement criteria. But our politician are asking us to trust them blindly on hollow words like empowerment, inclusion, vision, secularism and transparency. So let us take part in this exercise, let us be proud of our democracy, our vote and our government without having a clear idea what this vote means, what the government intends to and what the government can and should do- something which those intending to form the government too are not quite sure of.

Pointless Debates, Face Saving Distractions

Democracy is about debate, discussion and governance by consent of the people. In that view, arguing over policy or what is the right way to develop or how best to utilise government revenue is a good sign that this is still a democracy. But then the debate should not be about proving my side right and the other wrong, but understanding what the other side has to say, taking the right points from it and then coming up with a policy. I do not see such a step in the recent debate between Jagdish Bhagwati and his supporters and the supporters of Amartya Sen.

Before getting into what each side has to say, there are a few points which we must understand. India is not an equal country and this is not about everyone having the same amount of assets or income, leave that aside. But it is about availability of opportunity- women, lower castes and tribals suffer from severe social disabilities. If they attempt to own a motorbike or show signs of prosperity, they are attacked and assets destroyed (a), if landless farmers try to seek more rent, they are met with militias of landlords (b).

Imagine living in your home, going to your office on your car/bike, working on a computer. What if the government decides one fine day that your home, your bike, the road you travel on and the computer belongs to the state? What gives the state the power to take away my livelihood? Well, this has been the reality for ALL of India's tribals for over a century, a grievous injustice that was never rectified on independence but was only exacerbated. Earlier, it was only contractors, forest department and multi-purpose projects going after forests. Now, mining and steel plants seek the areas too. The people in these areas have little or no access to health, education and their livelihoods are being threatened.

Perhaps the situation of women in this country require a little less explanation since the nation has awakened post the protests in Delhi in Dec2012. Rightly so, but there are women in other lesser known parts of the country who still continue to suffer in silence and sometimes, not so silently but not loud enough for most of us to hear (c)

There are more MPI poor people in eight Indian states than in the 26 poorest African countries combined. 421 million people in the Indian States of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, the 26 poorest African countries are home to 410 million MPI poor people. India has experienced strong economic growth in recent
years, yet the MPI reveals that extensive acute multidimensional poverty persists. (Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index, 2010, Sabina Elkire & Maria Emma Santos). Add to this how the recent poverty figures from the government is just a gimmick (d) and you get a picture of how the state has failed.

Even if this inequality or discrimination did not exist, let us assume the poor are poor because of their own fault (that it most definitely is not so has been proved). What of their children? By what fault of theirs are they denied what we take for granted- education, health and three meals a day. How can we forget the fact that we were born lucky and that is why we can know of Sen and Bhagwati let alone discuss who is right? There are definitely individuals who have overcome their hurdles and gone on to a better life. But in a nation where opportunities are limited, the number of people fighting for IIT, IIM, Medical seats and government jobs alone will tell you that it is a struggle every step of the way. There are many who miss out on it narrowly in spite of the average or above average facilities, then how can we expect the poor to completely overcome their state without any external intervention?

This brings me to the most debated and pointless intervention of all- reservation. Yes it is necessary to rectify past disabilities. But right now reservation benefits the same person twice or thrice- to get into an engineering college, to get into B-School and then to get a job. Is that fair? Their children too will continue to get reservation, is it fair? Right now the benefits of reservation are accessed by those relatively well-off among OBC,SCs and STs. It does not benefit the community and the well off have a stake in keeping the community backward since they have benefited most from it and will continue to benefit.

What this proves is that-
1) There is widespread poverty and this in spite of massive economic development over the last twenty years.
2) There is social inequality that prevent individuals from being able to take control of their own lives and grow out of poverty
3) There have been massive failures from the government side in eliminating economic and social inequalities

I am not saying that the Food Security Ordinance or NREGA will change their plight. Relegating the entire Sen-Bhagwati debate to that is ridiculous though. It is more like who is for what- Bhagwati is for no state interference and free run of capital and markets and Sen is purported to be for government control. Amartya Sen has not been debating, he simply expressed his opinions on why we need a food security bill, but he has regularly spoken about how the state has failed its people and what development should mean. His welfare economics does not mean government taxing the rich to satisfy the never ending needs of the infinite number of poor as is being suggested by many who debate on Bhagwati's side. His idea is that due to widespread inequalities, we require state intervention to set things right and that too mostly in the arena of health, education and infrastructure.

Why these three sectors?

 1)These are absolutely essential for the people
2) long gestation period which means there are no immediate returns and immediate returns are the ONLY concern of private capital (anyone who thinks who private capital or market mechanisms reward long-term view need only to look at Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and how a small bunch of speculators held the world economy to ransom and threatened US government with dire consequence if the government does not cover its losses)
3) Huge need of capital

Government or state intervention is also required in ensuring environmental laws are implemented, public interest is protected, to ensure fair competition and to prevent swindling like that of 2008. This means independent regulatory set-up for different sectors to determines ground rules and to ensure the players abide by them. This definitely should not be a method of control for the government which it can milk to obtain benefits and disburse favours.

Sen also said that pure economic growth is not an indicator of well-being of the people and obsession with that number is purely a trick to make us blind to reality. He never says that there should be no economic growth and he never asks for state control of the economy, all Sen says is that growth in economy should be used for well-being of the people or 'growth-mediated' development. What is so wrong or offensive about this?

A similar debate happened between Keynes and Hayek almost 60 years ago. Although not on the same scale, there certainly are lessons for us to learn. A free reign to market mechanisms will not address the issues since it is always on the look out for short term profits alone and people and environment do not figure in their list of priorities unless they are a good source of publicity through catchy slogans or glamorous Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives. We know this from experience. But private enterprise and market mechanisms do have a role- in producing goods and services and ensuring economic growth. It is the job of the government to ensure this goes on subject to some conditions and it would be prudent for the government to stay away from these activities as past experience has taught us this can only lead to stagnation. This is where Mr.Bhagwati is right, allow market mechanisms to run its course to a large extent, reduce red tape and eliminate government discretion over allocation of resources and reduce the size of government which interferes every step of the way. Here too past experience teaches us that the elimination of the License-Permit raj freed our entrepreneurs from being lost in the corridors of power and made the playing field level since until now those who could manipulate the bureaucracy could do what they pleased and got exceedingly good at it. They still exist and use their old contacts to win favours, contracts, resources- this is what we must eliminate.

Therefore, a large section of the population still requires government intervention- since they cannot possibly do it own their own and private capital has little interest in aiding them- to climb out of poverty and social inequality and in spite of various attempts by the government over the last 60 years, nothing has happened and this is due to state failure. We need the state or its regulators to make sure the environment is protected and there is fair competition. This is where we must unite and debate how this state failure can be addressed and rectified.

Then who is right? I would begin with an opinion that I have read -'why should my hard-earned money be used to feed the poor?'. This is the wrong question to ask since they are not poor by choice and most of them are poor due to historical inequalities and forces beyond their control and we are well-off due to the fact that we did not suffer from these inequalities every step of the way. We are also perhaps one step away from their situation- disease, accident, natural disaster or war can erase all our wealth and then what? We have already decided and put in stone that state intervention is unnecessary and hard earned tax payers money should not be spend on the poor. The discourse in the debate and what Mr.Sen and Mr.Bhagwati has important points for us to learn and implement.

The question we should ask then is 'why should my hard-earned money be used to garner votes by implementing a scheme full of holes and brings no benefit to my fellow citizens?'. Of course this requires more than just clamouring for attention on the internet and debating on the internet over RG-NaMo, it requires serious thinking and action rather than just listening to opinions of experts and vomiting it out. All this debate does is to give fuel for political eye-wash and distract us from the real issues.

Nehru's Socialism and New India

Every economics, modern history book and article I read on India has a reference to Nehruvian socialism and its evils and the 'Hindu rate of growth'. I do not agree that Nehruvian socialism and protectionism was bad and has only harmed India and I do not really understand the truth behind the phrase because for 18 centuries India was the leading economy of the world and it was largely made of Hindus (Period of Guptas was called the Golden age of India). I am not trying to glorify a religion or spew forth propaganda but merely pointing at how short our memory is and how misnomers are the norm. One could say that Mughal period was one of Indian renaissance, I would hardly call it that because all the structures mughals built were palaces and graves for themselves like absolute rulers still do and they encouraged arts and crafts for their own pleasure(a) and mughal empire was city-centric with very little connection to the people with the king being a distant reality as his connection with most of the people was merely collecting revenues.


I would like to point out the benefits of socialism that was established by Nehru by looking at the reasons for India's recent growth-
1) Large number of educated individuals- this was the result of the strong base for education that was set-up which resulted in increase in literacy and also created a large number of professionals
2) Indian enterprises- Although protectionism did fuel corruption, inefficiency and easy going attitude it did allow the nation to create some wealth in public sector and also a few in the private sector. Although the ones in private sector had a tough struggle, Infosys, Patni, TCS etc were founded in the pre- reform India.

 We are also a secular democracy which has reasonable stability when compared with almost all other nations that were freed from colonial rule and a perfunctory glance across the border would suffice to convince even the biggest cynics of India that we have been lucky and that is due to-
1) Secular Democracy- We are not a struggling democracy (atleast we established democracy and now are attempting to root out old malaises) or an autocratic nation. In spite of issues, we do have an elected government
2) Judiciary- Our judiciary has been the protector of our rights even when government has been trying its utmost to curtail them and has delivered landmark verdicts on tax laws to property disputes

We are not a banana republic or an autocracy or anti-secular nation simply because we chose to protect and cement the ideals on which our country was founded and close the nation so that these foundations will not be washed away by the tides created by cold war and other conflicts that was raging the world over, before they can solidify. If we had left our nation open for foreign investments immediately, we would have seen a continuation of economic exploitation and slavery that was the hallmark of colonial rule.

There has to be questions asked of modern rate of growth too as we find that 47% of households do not have toilets and 30% of the population that numbers 36crore people are defined as poor under a ridiculous poverty line. We have an enormous middle class that are patronised by the current spurt of growth who have a stake in maintaining the status quo(a number greater than the population of US), we have a large number of poor who are used for human labour- statements like labourers are not available in construction industry and their wages have gone up due to MGNREGA clearly show this exploitive attitude since MGNREGA doesn't even provide minimum wages in most places- and a small section of rich and powerful who decide what happens in this country.

Whether or not situation has improved is a pertinent question and so this must be answered before derogatory use of 'Nehruvian' socialism and 'Hindu rate of growth' since such remarks forget the fact that our current growth is making the rich richer and has made a middle class that buffer the rich from the poor and is making the poor poorer. This growth is benefiting some section of society and hence cannot be considered to be in the interest of the nation and rather than focussing on numbers alone, we must find a balance between greater aspirations of the rich and middle class and the survival needs of the poor. We might have something fruitful to learn from old ridiculed policies, not their entire implementations but some of its intentions and ideals.

Nehruvian socialism should have been seen as the means to get to a stable position, a time during which India consolidated its position on a strong foundation, strengthened our nation's unity and shored up our defences but it became the absolute end and saw it as our duty and purpose to establish a socialist paternal state driving even the thought of what should have been the real goals out of the picture.


(a) - Public Administration in India, S.R.Maheshwari, Ch.2, The Mughal Administration

Solutions

As I hadn't suggested any solutions in the previous post, but merely problems which all are aware of and quite obvious, I did think about how these issues can be tackled. They may or may not work, but no one can say for sure what will happen.

The government must act as protector and trustee of the resources (spectrum or minerals) and dispense them keeping the public good in mind, not how much money will come to the government itself or Swiss bank accounts of individuals.

The government must get out of most economic activities like aviation and hotel running and be involved only in essential and basic ones like defense, power and water supply, atomic energy, public transport, space etc. This is because these are absolutely essential to the country and only the government can invest massive amount of money and also engage in sectors that may not generate huge profits but are absolute necessities for the people  and serve strategic purposes too.

In certain sectors like communication, transport, education etc it can have a presence to make sure that private enterprises do not engage in unfair practices like price-fixing or predatory pricing and provide a benchmark.

The government must appoint independent regulators in all sectors ranging from education to environment protection, consisting of experts in the field to make sure no one engages in unfair practices and the interests of the people are protected. It is here that civil society and activists have a role to play, it is here that informed citizens have a part to  play and that is why we all have a role to play in a democracy as we need to keep  ourselves informed of the state of affairs in our nation and not just the state of 'affairs' among celebrities. We need to raise our voice and that does not always have to mean getting on the road and shouting slogans but just voting properly and expressing opinion.

Our local self governing bodies must make sure that government funds are utilised properly, conduct surprise inspections on their implementation whether it be road or canal construction or teaching at schools or public health centres and check whether they are not functioning, those affected by them must find out how their grievances can be redressed and that is why awareness, literacy and discussions are important- only informed citizens can make sure they get what is due to them as rights, entitlements and facilities. This coupled with legislation like the citizen's charter and strong grievance redressal mechanisms and the lokpal or lokayukta that is in the offing can create a better country for future generations.

The best cure for bad democracy is a democracy where people are well informed, politically active and demand what is due to them which will make their representatives answerable to them directly. We have even now people who ask why read the newspaper or why should I keep myself aware of what is happening in this country, they have no right to blame a government, they only come out to express their emotions and wear a gandhi cap when it is fashionable to do so. We need to first rise up from our own slumber and then make demands from our government for fair, equitable development and a clean environment in all senses for us to live in.