Politics without policy
André Béteille June 28, 2012
The acrimony between the government
and the opposition has worsened to such an extent that it has subverted
attempts to reach workable solutions to practical problems
The French sociologist and columnist
Raymond Aron had pointed out that in English, there are two different terms,
“politics” and “policy” whereas in his own language there is only one single
term, “La politique,” to cover both. It is the same in German as in French, for
the same German word, “politik,” covers both policy and politics. We should
make use of the resources of the English language to reflect on a distinction
that has acquired crucial importance in the present phase of our democratic
system.
The central concern of politics, as
I understand it, is the pursuit of power. In a democracy the contest for power
is never free from uncertainty and anxiety, and Indian politics is now marked
by increasing turmoil. Those who make politics their career become accustomed
to its turbulence and some even take a peculiar pleasure in it.
Policy, on the other hand, is a
matter of setting clear goals and working methodically towards their
attainment. It is, in Max Weber’s famous phrase, “a slow boring of hard
boards.” Policymaking requires a calm and settled environment, and a clear and
even temper in the policymaker. Politicians are expected to play to the
galleries and to gather public applause for their eloquence. Policy cannot be
made under continuous public gaze, although it can hardly be effective without
passing the test of political approval.
Although politics and policy follow
distinct compulsions and have different orientations, they need not act against
each other. In the last 10 to 15 years politics has taken such a turn in India
that it not only unsettles the environment required for making viable policies
but openly subverts attempts to reach workable solutions to difficult practical
problems.
Kind of duumvirate
The relations between government and
opposition have become increasingly acrimonious over the years. Even where
there is broad agreement over, let us say, foreign policy or economic policy,
each side maintains an adversarial relationship with the other, fearing that
there will be a loss of face if not a loss of support from its constituents if
it appears conciliatory. The habitually confrontationist conduct of both
government and opposition is complicated by the fact that neither the one nor
the other speaks in a single voice. This may be a good thing where it serves to
defuse tension but it is not conducive to deliberations on policy.
The present system in India has
settled into operating as a kind of duumvirate with its own distinctive
features. It has done so without starting with any clear plan to be what it has
become. A division of responsibility and power has emerged between the Prime
Minister and the head of the ruling party who is also the head of the ruling
coalition. It corresponds neither to the Westminster model nor to the Leninist
model favoured by Communist parties throughout the world. In the former the
prime minister enjoys clear pre-eminence while in the latter power rests with
the head of the party. Should we be disheartened that Indian democracy is
following a path of its own?
The general belief among both allies
and opponents is that the relationship between the Prime Minister and the head
of the Congress party is an unequal relationship in which the former has to act
at the behest of the latter, which would make it closer to the Leninist than
the Westminster model. This, I think, is a mistaken belief. Whatever may have
been the equation between Ms Sonia Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh in 2004, that
equation has changed with the passage of time. It is true that Dr. Singh cannot
do without Ms Gandhi, but it is equally true that Ms Gandhi cannot do without
Dr. Singh. This truth becomes more and more evident as we recognise that both
the Prime Minister and the head of the Congress party have to contend with
alliance partners whose sudden demands can unsettle the most reasonable
agreements on policy.
Distinctive party system
The political party has emerged as
an important institution in modern democratic nations. India has developed its
own distinctive party system. It is neither a two-party system nor a
multi-party system with three, four or even half-a-dozen parties of the kind
commonly found in continental Europe. It is a system with a multiplicity of
parties. This multiplicity is a reflection of the size and diversity of our
social and political order. Attention to the demands of coalition partners
requires accommodation of the claims of patronage as well as of personal
vanity. Any action that may be construed as an affront or a slight by the
leader of even a minor ally can cause a major political upheaval. The demands
of this kind of political management deflect attention away from the long-term
requirements of policy. In the 21st century devising effective policy calls for
technical skills for which sound political instincts cannot be a substitute.
The government that Dr. Singh heads
would not work if the Congress party and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
did not hold together. For all his intelligence, hard work and probity, it is
doubtful that he would be able to hold the alliance and even his own party
together all by himself.
To say that the relationship between
the head of the government and the head of the UPA has acquired a kind of
stability is not to maintain that it can be made permanent or given an
institutional form. Indian democracy has moved a long way since the country
became independent and adopted a republican constitution more than 60 years
ago. It has created new political arrangements as it has faced new political
challenges. It has shown considerable resilience and in some ways strengthened
itself even while setting aside old arrangements and established ways of
thought and action.
Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime
Minister of independent India took charge of both politics and policy. His
pre-eminence within the Congress party, particularly after the passing of
Sardar Patel and the withdrawal of Rajaji, was widely, if not universally
acknowledged. But his mastery of policy was also widely acknowledged, at least
within his own party. It would be unrealistic to expect the present head of the
Congress party to have the kind of grasp of policy matters that Nehru had or
Dr. Singh has. It would be equally unrealistic to expect the present Prime
Minister to deal with party matters with Nehru’s self-assurance.
We cannot go back to Nehru’s age, or
to the dawn of independence which began with great, some would now say
unrealistic expectations from our leaders of government and politics. Nor
should we be beguiled by the hope that a new leader will soon emerge, a true
statesman who will combine in himself all the virtues that we expected in our
political leaders at the time when the new republic came into being. We have to
make the best of what we have achieved and what we have which is not
inconsiderable. Indian democracy may be disorderly but it is also vibrant and,
like any living system it undergoes continuous change. It is easy to lose heart
in the face of so much disorder, but democracy advances by facing disorder, not
turning its back on it.
(André Béteille is Professor
Emeritus of Sociology, Delhi University, and National Research Professor.)
