The PM needs to tap into his latent support base among the aspirational classes, while keeping the loony fringe at bay to stop or reverse the change in the political atmosphere
The unipolar moment in India’s politics is over. For nearly a year since the Lok Sabha elections, the Opposition had been flat on its back, and the Bharatiya Janata Party as well as the prime minister had pretty much enjoyed things going their way. The change began with the Delhi assembly elections, which the BJP lost badly.
Now there is the changed mood in the Congress with the rebirth of Rahul Gandhi (proving yet again that the party is nothing without its family ownership), Mamata Banerjee’s victory in the West Bengal civic polls, and the coming together of the Janata parties under one umbrella, ahead of the Bihar state elections.
That the unipolar moment has passed is evident in Parliament, not just in Gandhi’s dramatics but also in how difficult the government finds it to get legislation passed. The land bill is well and truly stuck. Politically, the ruling party is on the defensive, but it can move neither forward nor back. The best tactic would be to find some way to bury the bill in parliamentary processes, and to let the ordinance lapse quietly. But worse may be to come, if the Constitutional amendment for introducing the goods and services tax is subjected to the same parliamentary obstructionism. Since this involves a two-thirds majority in Parliament, it will live or die depending on the Opposition’s stance. On the basis of his track record, Modi is not someone who stoops to conquer; it remains to be seen if he can divide and rule.
Modi’s decision to start slowly on his reform agenda may have turned out to be unwise. He ignored warnings that the window of political opportunity invariably closes within a year of a new government’s life, and preferred to hasten slowly till important state elections had been won.
The BJP has gained, but Modi’s government may pay the price. There is still time to recoup and regroup. While the business mood reflects disappointment with the government, most business people remain somewhat optimistic that there will be change visible before long. It is also likely that Modi retains a broad measure of political support, despite general disappointment at the lack of visible change and disapproval when it comes to social policy stances. But, unlike during election campaigns or foreign visits, Modi is to be neither seen nor heard from except through radio chats. The “master communicator” has to engage if he wants to shape the debate.
If the prime minister does not lead from the front and tap into his latent support base among the aspirational classes, while keeping the loony fringe at bay, he will not be able to stop or reverse the change in the political atmosphere. Populism comes naturally to India’s political parties.
But if the Opposition is allowed to define the debate in political short-hand that posits win-lose scenarios rather than win-win, no ambitious reform programme can be designed to improve the efficiency with which the factors of production (land, labour, capital) are used. Such productivity gain lies at the heart of rapid economic growth and reduction of poverty.
Farmers’ problems have become the focus of intense political debate, but what are the solutions, and where do they lie? The problems on the trade front lie not in trade policy but in the lack of efficient economic infrastructure and a sensible currency policy. Similarly, the problems with industrial performance lie inter alia in laws relating to land and labour. It is no different with agriculture and farmer distress; the solutions lie in creating non-farm jobs and reducing the numbers who work the land for a living. In other words, while much can and should be done to improve the conditions for farming, the heart of the issue is employment, especially non-farm employment. The government has to focus on that, and be seen to be delivering.
