11-07-2007, 02:21 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Divide and rule </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Coalitions can work, Mr Singh
Inaugurating a federalism conference in New Delhi on Monday, Prime Minister <b>Manmohan Singh complained that regional parties and those with narrow, "regional and sectional loyalties" tended to distort the "national vision". </b>Read alongside his recent statement -- to the board of a management consultancy -- that "fractured mandates" were impeding national development, it is clear that <b>Mr Singh is blaming the coalition system for the comatose state of the India-United States nuclear deal</b>. Admittedly, a multi-party alliance, with a variety of State and community specific agendas, can be inimical to policy consistency. Even decisions that are obviously advantageous to India can fall by the wayside. Yet, is the Prime Minister being entirely honest when he blames the proverbial 'system'? Is he not shirking responsibility? After all, coalitions and fractured mandates are here to stay. It is extremely unlikely that any election in the near future is going to give either national party -- the BJP or the Congress -- more than 150 to 175 seats. In such a scenario, pushing through with what is practicable and what the head of the coalition believes needs to be done is a test of leadership. It requires a mix of inter-personal skills, political conviction and, sometimes, bloody-mindedness. It is about starting with the assumption that politics is the art of the possible -- not that it is a dirty business that self-righteous technocrats must float two inches above. Mr Singh's frustration at the Left and select regional allies -- the DMK, RJD and NCP -- sabotaging the nuclear agreement may be understandable. Even so, if the deal now seems near-impossible, it is because the Congress lost its nerve, and the party leadership did not have the courage to go ahead. A federalised polity is the symptom -- the ailment lies elsewhere.
Coalition Governments and fractured mandates cannot be wished away. Neither would it be fair to categorise them as non-achievers. <b>The NDA experiment was a success because, as Prime Minister, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee had a persona and a public credibility that overrode coalition contradictions. Yes, even he had to compromise -- notably with the frequent blackmail of the Telugu Desam -- but in the end he could make significant progress on whatever he wanted to achieve: From Pokhran II to the national highways project to a new telecom policy</b>. Mr Singh can argue that his Government and party are hamstrung by the absence of an overwhelming national figure such as Mr Vajpayee. Fair enough, but consider other coalition models. In 1996-97, the United Front (UF) gave India its most disjointed Government since, perhaps, the last days of the Mughal Empire. Yet, as Finance Minister, Mr P Chidambaram presented an aggressive Budget in February 1997. He cut taxes, bet on the Laffer curve and put his trust on a demand surge driving up the economy. The Budget was prescient; it anticipated the boom that arrived a few years later and set fiscal policy on a course that has not been reversed. It is nobody's argument that the then Prime Minister, Mr HD Deve Gowda, or Mr Chidambaram's then party, the Tamil Maanila Congress, or the rest of the UF or the Left that was a part of the Government, believed in economic liberalism. How, then, does Mr Singh explain that Budget of 10 years ago?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Coalitions can work, Mr Singh
Inaugurating a federalism conference in New Delhi on Monday, Prime Minister <b>Manmohan Singh complained that regional parties and those with narrow, "regional and sectional loyalties" tended to distort the "national vision". </b>Read alongside his recent statement -- to the board of a management consultancy -- that "fractured mandates" were impeding national development, it is clear that <b>Mr Singh is blaming the coalition system for the comatose state of the India-United States nuclear deal</b>. Admittedly, a multi-party alliance, with a variety of State and community specific agendas, can be inimical to policy consistency. Even decisions that are obviously advantageous to India can fall by the wayside. Yet, is the Prime Minister being entirely honest when he blames the proverbial 'system'? Is he not shirking responsibility? After all, coalitions and fractured mandates are here to stay. It is extremely unlikely that any election in the near future is going to give either national party -- the BJP or the Congress -- more than 150 to 175 seats. In such a scenario, pushing through with what is practicable and what the head of the coalition believes needs to be done is a test of leadership. It requires a mix of inter-personal skills, political conviction and, sometimes, bloody-mindedness. It is about starting with the assumption that politics is the art of the possible -- not that it is a dirty business that self-righteous technocrats must float two inches above. Mr Singh's frustration at the Left and select regional allies -- the DMK, RJD and NCP -- sabotaging the nuclear agreement may be understandable. Even so, if the deal now seems near-impossible, it is because the Congress lost its nerve, and the party leadership did not have the courage to go ahead. A federalised polity is the symptom -- the ailment lies elsewhere.
Coalition Governments and fractured mandates cannot be wished away. Neither would it be fair to categorise them as non-achievers. <b>The NDA experiment was a success because, as Prime Minister, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee had a persona and a public credibility that overrode coalition contradictions. Yes, even he had to compromise -- notably with the frequent blackmail of the Telugu Desam -- but in the end he could make significant progress on whatever he wanted to achieve: From Pokhran II to the national highways project to a new telecom policy</b>. Mr Singh can argue that his Government and party are hamstrung by the absence of an overwhelming national figure such as Mr Vajpayee. Fair enough, but consider other coalition models. In 1996-97, the United Front (UF) gave India its most disjointed Government since, perhaps, the last days of the Mughal Empire. Yet, as Finance Minister, Mr P Chidambaram presented an aggressive Budget in February 1997. He cut taxes, bet on the Laffer curve and put his trust on a demand surge driving up the economy. The Budget was prescient; it anticipated the boom that arrived a few years later and set fiscal policy on a course that has not been reversed. It is nobody's argument that the then Prime Minister, Mr HD Deve Gowda, or Mr Chidambaram's then party, the Tamil Maanila Congress, or the rest of the UF or the Left that was a part of the Government, believed in economic liberalism. How, then, does Mr Singh explain that Budget of 10 years ago?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->