An Indian Perspective on Politics

Indian Perspective

"This coalition politics is killing business and the country" moaned Suresh, the 2nd generation head of a family who's name is synonymous with Mumbai real estate. "More whiskey?"

"Yes please, single malt and soda" I replied. "Soda?" he asked, surprised.

"Please; when I'm thirsty, neat doesn't work for me".

We were on the penthouse terrace, of a restauranteur who has developed an all India chain in 4 years, not bad for starting with one restaurant. The last 10 years have been good for almost any business that rode on increases in disposable income of an upwardly mobile and growing urban population.

The ride was good but appears to have ended, to the chagrin of its beneficiaries. Most seem to blame coalition politics, the fact that India has so many regional political parties, and that the national parties, now only Congress and the BJP, appear unable to reclaim their lost glory of winning anything approaching a majority on their own.

Amongst the alternatives, in cocktail and dinner conversations, both the US and China are looked at with some envy, especially China, but no one really wants that kind of authoritarian rule.

It does make you wonder however, whether India could have a better system. A 2 party parliamentary democracy is often mentioned. Perhaps those who contemplate a 2 party Parliamentary democracy have not looked at the UK recently. To my mind it has not been a good example of holding its different parts together. The first to part ways with the UK, and quite some time ago, was Ireland. Now both Scotland and Wales already have a strong element of self-government, and Scotland will have a referendum on whether to stay or go its own way in autumn of 2014. While it is unlikely that Scotland and Wales could actually stand completely separate from the UK, one does begin to wonder – there is not much more that they could have fragmented.

When I look at how systems of government have performed, across many large countries, there appear to be two key factors at play, in deciding on a good system or even that keeps a country as one unit. These are the homogeneity of the population and the centralisation of power.

My hypotheses is that countries with a high degree of homogeneity in their population, think China with over 90% Han Chinese, or Japan, can survive with a very strong centre. However, for countries with a low homogeneity, there is a need for a weak centre, apparently, if the country is not to fragment.

It should follow that a strong centre, like in a Parliamentary democracy in the UK, with only 2 parties, in a country with a very heterogenous population, is likely to be a disaster in terms of keeping the disparate parts of the population together. With only 2 parties, the government in a Parliamentary democracy has the same people leading the Legislature and the Executive - a strong centre that can do, for 5 years at least, whatever it wants.

Indian should have perhaps paid more attention to what happened when the Congress had long periods in power at the centre in the 70s and 80s - I was often in Amritsar in the early 80s and have also travelled a lot in Jammu &Kashmir so have watched both those separatist movements with concern. In my admittedly subjective opinion, both those separatist movements were largely the outcome of a strong centre that discounted local concerns and tried to prop up or impose state level leaders with little or no legitimacy. In some cases, they even appeared to take away the political rights of people to elect their leaders, and the use of Article 356 typified what a strong centre can use, or abuse, to achieve its own ends. To my mind, most of India's major separatist movements started in that period. Interestingly, the last 15 years of coalition governments have resulted in no new separatist movements, and even appear to have muted many of the earlier ones in Assam and Punjab.

Perhaps Indians should consider themselves fortunate to have a multi-party system as a pressure relief valve for when a Parliamentary democracy, that they copied from the UK, becomes overbearingly powerful at the centre.

I am sure several Indians have thought of the US Presidential system, and at one time the BJP appeared very keen on it. After all, the US President is the most powerful man in the world, and yet, barring a civil war over a 100 years ago, that heterogenous population appears to do well.

Here's the surprising perspective, which appears to support my hypotheses. Intelligent analysts of the US constitution, especially from leading think tanks in the US that I spoke with, term their system as a weak centre! A little thought proves this view quite valid – firstly, the President while elected directly has no control over the Legislature, unless the voters wish to give that powerful a mandate. This is quite unlike a Parliamentary system, where the voters elect the Legislature, and the largest Legislature party in the Parliament decides on the PM, so the powers are aligned and greater.

In the US, even when the President, the Senate and the House are all with one party, the voters get to decide every 2 years (the term of a member of the House of Representatives and also when one third of the Senators face election) whether to continue to provide that centralisation of power. The US appears to work by much of the power residing with Sate Governors and State Legislatures rather than the centre, or Federal government. The US President, while appearing larger than life, appears powerful only in Foreign Policy and during wars and crises.

So here is my advice to all those Indian friends who have been so successful, whether in real estate or restaurants – coalitions, and strong local leaders, are a key part of what has held this vast and diverse country together. It is interesting that the BJP appears to develop many of its Chief Ministers from State level or grass-roots politicians, far more so than the Congress. Yet today I find Rahul Gandhi echoing the need to have many local level leaders (though his ‘man on a horse’ analogy left me cold), which I completely agree with.

Suresh comes back with bartender in tow –“Which single malt do you want – he has 15 different ones”.

“Lagavulin, if you have it” I tell the bartender.

We stand at the edge of the terrace and take in the Mumbai skyline, with real estate barons and restauranteur kings, with single malt and scotch.

“What about Mumbai?” asks Suresh. “Do you think the property market will fall?”

“I am not bullish” I reply, and then add, after mulling over his question “I do not see infrastructure being created that will make a big difference, and people’s ability to afford is reaching its limit”.

“We need a strong Chief Minister, who will make things happen – a combination of shrewd politician and strong administrator” says Suresh.

“Perhaps, but any CM will divide his time between the rest of the state and Mumbai. How many MLAs does Mumbai contribute to the Maharashtra Assembly?” I ask.

I think perhaps India needs more power with the States, and less (at least for internal matters) with the Centre. Perhaps the States in turn need to give more power to the major cities – many have a population larger than the smaller states. Unfortunately the Indian Constitution did not think ahead to the needs of diversity and of mega-cities – directly elected Mayors, the norm in all major cities in the world, are completely absent in India.

“We need a Rudy Giuliani for Mumbai” say Suresh. “I really liked his talk when he visited Mumbai 3-4 years ago”.

I finish the single malt with a last appreciative look at the Mumbai Sealink – the only landmark infrastructure project I have seen happen here in the last 20 years.

“A Rudy Giuliani would not even appear in your political system” I sigh.