The global scene of dominance has changed over the last few decades. Economic power has taken precedence over military power. The American and the Soviet dominance has slowly dwindled away after the cold war era and in the 21st century the West has to compete with the BRIC countries, considered to be developing nations in the past. This new front has shifted gears and is in full speed to attain economic prominence in the world stage. Under these changing circumstances, the old and tested formulae of governance must make way to the more dynamic, contemporary and lucrative methodology. What I am trying to say is a nation cannot be treated as a geographical divide of culture and ideology but as a corporate having it business objective set at attaining economic sustainability and then supremacy. On saying this, it does not mean other governance sectors are of any little importance. But when you as a nation have set your goals to move forward progressively, the economic structure of the nation drives all its branches like agriculture, infrastructure, law, health and culture towards that common goal.
After all the tamasha of this years elections and a thumping verdict in favor of a ruling national party, it was time for governance to take center stage. We have a Prime Minister who has his visions clear on what he and his government wants to achieve in the next five years. The accidental Prime Minister had become the peoples choice to lead this country forward during its tough times. In the following days after the elections results, the elected party set its sight on establishing a formidable, experienced and transparent government. There were a lot of words flying in the air of who would be what minister. One thing which caught my attention and provoked me to write this essay was the nomination of Montek Singh Ahluwalia for the post of Finance Minister. A technocrat with an Oxford degree and also currently the deputy chair of the planning commission, he had the potential and experience to handle India's economic top job.
Is India as a nation ready to revamp its 62 year old system and adjust to a corporate governance formula? How affective is it to have technocrats running crucial sectors of the government? Won't technocrats have better understanding of the ground reality than politicians ? Will technocrats understand the political sensitivity of certain issues? And ,are elected representative ready to work with technocrats ? These are few of the questions which came in my mind as I visioned India as INDIA Inc. rather than REPUBLIC OF INDIA.
Imagine an India led by a technocrat politician and advised by other dynamic, visionary and efficient technocrats. Wont that structure make a cabinet meeting look like a board meeting....!! Sounds interesting doesn't it. A government in which a lawyer is heading the ministry of law, a economist heading the finance and commerce department, a educationist heading the HRD and education department, a veteran soldier heading the defense ministry etc.. Well versed with their area of expertise gives them the liberty to focus and implement regulations effectively. They relate more to the situation than someone who is bestowed the duty on compulsion or by political balancing. For example, imagine a comparative situation where a technocrat or a politician with no defense background has to take a decision on national security and threat from his enemies. A technocrat will have a better understanding on the military capabilities of the country and his countries capability to defend the nation. In lieu we have a politician who has never interacted with the defense forces and doesn't have an understanding of defense mechanism, is expected to take prompt and apt decision on national security. To state another example, a high school teachers turned politician who has no educational background or experience in finance is given the responsibility of handling the nations finance under such economic backdrops. Do we really have so much time in hand in such a fast and competitive global scenario of try our hand on such individuals?
On the flip side technocrats think from the brain and not from the heart, which the politicians do well ( I must say few of them think well from others pockets also!!). There is a very fine balancing act which today's politicians perform to maintain their vote bank and also prove their worthiness to the people. Issues regarding reservations to the backward classes in educational institutions and other public sectors is an old formula but in this contemporary world of internet based entrance exams, this method proves profitable to many politicians on voting day. Issues on free rice and flour to the poor, free electricity to the farmers etc are viable and test ways to lure public favoritism. What would a technocrat, treating these issues as business objectives over a period for 5 or 10 years do? He might aim at development of schools for the backward classes and encourage merit based selection to generate competent work force to run this very mechanism he has been thriving to develop. He would create jobs for the poor to earn their rice and flour and be more self-sufficient. He would encourage farmers to harvest renewable sources of energy for their cultivation having a vision of eradicating the dependency of conventional energy. All these ideas may look fascinating to us on the long run but can they really attract votes?
Summing up, I believe a fine blend between technocrats and educated politicians can help in the transition from a nation to a corporate. A shrewed politician acting along side an erudite technocrats who has his mission memorised is an appropriate way in this age to deal with a nation of varied economic, social and cultural backgrounds, marching towards its objective of global recognition or as they say in corporate world - GLOBALIZATION!
Once again a good blog....
ReplyDeleteI guess this is the dream every Indian has, to see this nation led by people who are educated .. But I would say, more than educated we need people who are cultured and well-mannered and this has nothing to do with education....India can not think of globalization unless we reduce the gap between the haves and have-nots...India is going to elect the "leaders" we dont need unless there is a socio-economic change at the grassroot level....but it doent look that bad after this year's election..we might still have MPs with colorful pasts and criminal records but there is an increase in the educated ministers ( I would not dare to say cultured..)..Its nice to see Shashi Tharoor getting elected and as expected getting Ministry of external affairs as a state minister..kudos to MMS and whoever responsible ...Meera sanyal and Capt. Gopinath's candidacy was a good example of changing faces of politics...This change shows people are not looking at politics as just a dirty game and a place full of nepotism...
Globalization is good.... provided everyone gets equally benefitted...without leaving anyone behind....hint of communism is good with globalization ..I guess....
Welcome to the blog world!
ReplyDeleteIt’s an interesting idea you have explored, to govern a nation as one would a company. However, is it really possible to emulate that in a country such as India, which is still very much a young democracy? Ideally, it might be the answer to most of the roadblocks that we as a nation face while trying attain stability and supremacy, both politically and to an extent economically. A viable solution; assign politicians to ministries to which they are best suited, in terms of education and experience. However, the issue with these ‘technocrats’ is that while they may have vast expertise in their respected fields they may not have the political savvy that is needed to get things done in a country like ours, be it trying to counter grass-root problems like education, the caste system and rural employment or for that matter lobbying to get the parliament to pass a nuclear bill. We still definitely need true blue bureaucrats to deal with the bureaucracy.
And let’s not discount the experience and contribution of some of our politicians, including the current finance minister. He might not have a degree from Oxford but he has already served the country as finance minister in the early 80s, has held key positions in various ministries such External Affairs, Commerce and Industry, and Revenue to name a few. He has also served on the board of international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. Even our current defense minister, who does not have an army background. With the corruption plaguing the ministry(a crucial one) the fact that we have a politician who is called 'Mr Clean' is a relief. Therefore, it may not always be essential that to successfully head a ministry one would have to be highly educated or experienced in that particular arena. The biggest example of this would be our current Prime Minister. Our ‘unexpected Prime Minister’, as most people like to call him, an economist, has managed to serve our country successfully, even though he does not have a degree in political science or has never really been in the forefront of mainstream politics.
So with India Inc. still at the precipice, waiting to get onto the global stage and being major player both politically and economically , we need leaders or (CEOs) who can make sound decisions and also make a viable and sustainable strategy for growth. So technocrat or not, a politician who is educated with some political experience, and a good group of advisers or (board of directors) will also do.
Hi Zarakaupu,
ReplyDeleteUr comment is like a mini blog itself!! Addressing your point. I was trying to weigh out what could be the scenario if we had the country run by technocrats. You should be very well aware how the appointments in America are made. The president gets to pick the best person of the lot in their respective field. For example Larry Summers, Geithner, Eric H Holder, Eric K Shinseki etc… Including the unsuccessful pick of Dr. Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General. All these people are mostly from a non-political background and know how to do their job coming from strong backgrounds.
I even know that its hard to compare two different democracies such as America and India. But I am sure there is always a time when this can be tried. A perfect blend is required such that it’s not only the politicians making the final call but have smart experienced technocrats next to their side making those smart calls. Contemporary India has a plethora of knowledge pool to pick from who can assist the juntha-savvy politicians. We always the a active parliament who can debate and modify decisions taken by these technocrats to tailor them as a populist law, but at least we will have some strong foundation to argue on rather than having a starting point which itself is populist.
This is an interesting experiment what can be tried in India by implementing it on the MoS level and even some lesser significant departments to see how it jives with the citizens and the political system. Our so called youth leader ( or heir apparent for PM) from the ruling party should think of such techniques to drive India forward having on board all its billion people.
We are all idealists when it comes to how we think the country should be run,aren't we.
ReplyDeleteWhile the United States has an established format where appointments are made solely based on education and experience and the nominated candidate is further 'interviewed' by the senate. In India, in most cases, an individual's position or clout in the party and the ruling party's alliances with regional parties are determining factors in appointments. However your idea is slowly being put into practice or shall we say 'a step in the right direction' has been taken in a small way, in the appointments of Shashi Tharoor, Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindia. The great thing about our country is that being a relatively young democracy we are still molding our political character. So there are ample opportunities to try "progressive formulas and be optimistic" that our leaders or our 'young PM is waiting' is enterprising enough to try and change the populist view.