Is it death knell for political process?

Is the government’s acceptance of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail a desperate measure to plug in the bleeding wounds of the Indian economy.

When these wounds have been arguably created by the same government in power, can we and should we accept their high-handedness in proposing and implementing these so-called curative measures such as the FDI?

Hasn’t the government hijacked the people’s right to exercise their will against it for having played havoc with our economy? Can industry’s euphoric welcome of  Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision really be interpreted to mean greater economic prosperity in the coming future? In light of the government’s past performance, why should one not consider the FDI decision to be one more Russian roulette-like tactic of fixing the wrongs?

What are we getting into as a nation when we allow our government to enter into an economics-led decision hastily put together with fancy deal-making footwork but without parliamentary processes? It has to be seen as to how the Prime Minister, as an executive head of a capitalist democracy, performs in taking along the so-called “good economics with bad politics”.

The Prime Minister and his team are confident enough of the stability of the government despite one of the partners (Trinamool Congress) withdrawing from the coalition. The signals are clear that two parties, large enough to “bail out” the government, had extended the support in writing in 2009.  In fact, one of the parties, despite being one of the major partners of the protest against the FDI, has been quick enough to reiterate its support to the government. The government is saved but the big question everyone seems to be interested in asking is whether the common man is convinced by the arguments of the Prime Minister in favour of “stringent measures” that are going to perhaps save the economy but trouble the people.

The Congress Party’s high-handedness in taking the decision about the FDI, at a time when Parliament is not in session, has avoided the showdown in the House, but it has raised a question of political morality which is directly linked with the question of legitimacy. Such an act of the government seems to have given the signal to the people that decisions of such kinds are not being taken keeping in mind the interest of the people or that of the nation. The message that people have received is that the government seems to be functioning under tremendous pressure from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. It is difficult to believe the words of the Prime Minister who himself, along with the members of his team, is known for his uncritical acceptance of the ideology of these two international organisations and it is further difficult to convince the people that the neoclassical prescriptions of these organisations are in favour of the people or in the interest of the nation.

One has to ask the Prime Minister as to why he did not try to build up a consensus among the political parties before deciding for the FDI in retail as it is such an important issue concerning a huge number of people. Now, once the government has decided this and the decision has reduced the government into a minority, it is justified to ask the government to convince the people that it still commands the confidence of the House.
Even the Samajwadi Party’s support to the government fails to bail it out as it is not supporting the FDI in retail and it is so adhoc that one can not be sure of it even for a few months.

It is possible to argue that the government fulfilling the constitutional requirement of majority through a letter of support by the Samajwadi Party is lying with the President of India. But it is difficult to deny the moral deficit of the government. The Prime Minister’s statements like “money does not grow on trees” or “I do not have any magic stick” only show his frustration. He cannot justify the failure of his policies by giving such statements. He has to take the responsibility of the failure of his new economic policies.
He owes an explanation to the people about his failure not only to prohibit the huge financial bungling but also to punish the guilty.

The only saving grace for the government is that despite all protest against its policies, nobody, including its detractors, has any concrete alternative to offer to solve the present crisis in the economy.

Probably, the people are not sure if a change in the government would bring home some relief as both the big parties in India share the economic perspective of neoclassical economics. In this situation, it is interesting to watch Indian politics to see if once again it throws an option of the third front.

The success of any third front will depend not only on the negotiating capabilities of the constituent members but also on the kind of alternative vision it offers to the people. It has to demystify the dream of prosperity which seems to be the key to success of UPA. But what that alternative dream that might catch the imagination of people would be, is something that one has to wait and watch.

(This writer is professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)

Related stories 

Playing to the gallery

FDI in infrastructure welcome, not in retail