Home
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anti-Populist Modi:NO FREE LUNCHES!, by Prakash Nanda,24 December 2004 Print E-mail

GUJARAT ANALYSIS

New Delhi, 24 December 2004 

Anti-Populist Modi

NO FREE LUNCHES!

By Prakash Nanda

The much-denigrated Narendra Modi has received another massive mandate from the people of Gujarat to start his third term as the Chief Minister. He had many odds against him --- his acts of omission and commission during the 2002 communal riots; his so-called arrogance that has alienated him from his senior colleagues in the BJP and his disregard for populist politics, particularly when the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was seeking the fourth consecutive term in office, something that no ruling party, except the communists in West Bengal, has managed to achieve in recent memory in Indian politics.

Of these, the critics have overplayed the first two “drawbacks” of Modi. Therefore, let us discuss the under-highlighted “drawback” of Modi --- his aversion towards populist politics. In fact, the most important lesson of the Gujarat polls is that Modi has proved that one can shun populism and yet win elections. 

The worst critics of Modi do accept the fact that under his Chief Ministership, every village, not to speak of towns in Gujarat gets uninterrupted supply of electricity these days, where earlier long and frequent power shortages were the order of the day. And yet these critics wooed the public to vote against Modi. Why? Because, Modi has been severe on those people who fail to pay for their electricity consumption.

In fact, one heard during the electioneering a prosperous diamond merchant in Surat telling a television journalist --- “what is the use in having electricity if people are forced to pay for its consumption. Earlier we never paid for electricity. We never cleared our bills, but nobody cut our connections. But under Modi, not only are our connections cut, we are also being forced to go to courts to face legal charges against us”, he added, while vowing that he would campaign for Modi’s ouster.  

In other words, detractors of Modi say that there is nothing wrong in stealing electricity. So much so that the rival Congress Party had promised to write off the unpaid electricity bills if voted to power. And worse, the Party had promised to supply free electricity to the farmers in the villages.

Moreover, so “appealing” was this Congress plank that senior BJP leaders in Gujarat had almost decided to copy this in their manifesto, but Modi was not impressed. He ultimately prevailed and the State BJP leaders were told not to be defensive about cutting electricity to the defaulters and punish them on charges of theft.                   

In my opinion, condoning power-theft is populism at its worst. In order to get votes, political parties encourage people to defy rules, regulations and laws. Let it be made clear that here one is not talking of the subsidies that the Government provides to the disadvantaged sections of the society on various items, though one can legitimately argue that the subsidy regime is simply not working in India. Here, one is talking of the middle class people --- the diamond merchant certainly belongs to this class --- being averse to pay for the facilities provided by the Government.

They do not want to pay their electricity bills, water charges and even income taxes. They violate all the rules and regulations --- we see how in cities like Delhi and Mumbai they encroach on the public properties, add unauthorized constructions in their residences and commercial establishments and so on. And yet, if the law tries to catch them, politicians come to the forefront in not only protecting them but also in justifying their actions!   

It seems that Narendra Modi is not one of these politicians. He believes in delivering goods to the people provided people pay accordingly for those goods. No wonder that he is disliked by India’s traditional political class and that includes his own BJP.

Besides, it is not wrong when some analysts say that more than the Congress leaders, many in his own BJP would have been happy if Modi had lost.  For these conventional or traditional politicians --- and they included all the BJP dissidents under the leadership of Keshubhai Patel --- Modi is the villain, as he did not believe in populist politics. 

Ironically, “populism” is not a wrong concept if one goes by its true meaning. At its core, populism stands in stark contrast to elitism and, therefore, by definition a populist would be against all forms of elitism: social, political and economic. It means being against corporatism. It means fighting those who corrupt to retain their elite status. 

A populist must surely be a status quo buster by representing the interests of the non-elites, the larger public of working --- and the middle-class people that are the victims of elitists. A true populist relates to the common person because he or she by virtue of their entire background is more of a common person than an elitist. Populists are not part of the establishment; they are fundamentally and aggressively anti-establishment.

The Encyclopedia Britannica provides this useful view of populism: "Political programme or movement that champions the common person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite. Populism usually combines elements of the left and right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established  socialist and labour parties”.

But if in India or in any developing country, populism has assumed wrong connotations, it is precisely because of the fact that the populist leaders here are essentially statusquoists and pro-establishment --- they do not want change; they want captive vote banks, which is possible when the people remain poor and poverty is glorified.

You cannot give free electricity knowing pretty well that it is not sustainable and once the state coffers get emptied by such policies, you do not have funds for growth, development and even for social justice that India’s populist politicians promise. In fact, one may give enough examples of how the populism of the Indian brand actually sustains and help the rich more than the poor (for instance, subsidy in diesels and fertilisers do not help the poor farmers who do not buy them.).

Writing in “the Guardian”, Ralf Dahrendorf, a member of the British House of Lords once decried successful populists worldwide, saying: "It does not take long for voters to discover that the promises of populists were empty. Once in power, they simply make for bad Government. Populist episodes are signs of an underlying instability that neither   serves national progress nor contributes to international order."  One cannot agree with him more.

In any case, when one talks of growth and development in this age of globalisation, one cannot progress without rules of law. Nobody will invest in developmental projects and infrastructural developments if one is not assured safety of his investments and returns. Why should the Ambanis --- sons of Gujarat --- invest in power generations (the two Ambani brothers are entering the power sector these days in a big way all over the country) if people will not pay for their power? 

Coming back to Narendra Modi, he is definitely a multi-faceted personality, analysing him is not easy task. He is not a typical populist politician since he is talking of the rules of law. One may find serious faults, and legitimately so, with his rules of law in dealing with the minorities, but he deserved support for his rules of law in the sphere of economic development. The Gujaratis have not disappointed him and taught his critics --- particularly, the aforesaid diamond merchant --- a fitting lesson. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

 

 

 

< Previous
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT