Myth-busting: Why govt isn't the answer to everything

A Supreme Court judge says cops who stage fake encounters should be hanged. Amnesty International wants the government to stop the execution of Devender Pal Singh, who was convicted for terrorism in the 1990s. Anna Hazare thinks we need a strong Lokpal to police every part of the bureaucracy. The National Advisory Council believes that giving ultra-low-cost food to 75 percent of the population will get the Congress re-elected in 2014. Kashmiri Muslims think azaadi is the panacea for their problems. The world knows America is overspending, but it is unwilling to believe America can go bust. What is the strand that connects these seemingly unconnected bits of news? [caption id=“attachment_57787” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The main criticism of the Anna Hazare campaign against corruption is that someone from civil society cannot dictate terms to an elected government. AFP”] [/caption] All of them are pointers to the fact that we are still wedded to yesterday’s ideas. The world has changed, but we are still dealing with it like the day before. Here’s my checklist of eight ideas we need to re-examine or abandon if we are to confront and meet our new challenges. Some are liberal ideas, some conservative, some are dear to the Right, some to the Left, but all of them are worth re-examining. Myth 1: Democracy is about elections once in five years. The main criticism of the Anna Hazare campaign against corruption is that someone from civil society cannot dictate terms to an elected government. Implicit in this argument is the belief that once elected, no further reference needs to be made to citizens or voters. Once elected, the legislature has the licence to do what it wants. No commonsense view of democracy can ever agree with this. Democracy is not a once-in-five-years exercise; it is about consulting and being in touch with the people every day. Elections can be won on the basis of one issue, but no voter is concerned only with one issue over the life of a legislature. In 1984, Rajiv Gandhi won on the basis of a sympathy vote over his mother’s assassination, but even with the largest majority in history his government faltered before its term ended. The future of democracy hinges on making consultations with people a regular affair. It means not just dealing with one Hazare, but several. But what if consultations don’t lead to consensus? We clearly need more elections than we can handle to settle issues, but one futuristic solution can happen over the next five years: e-referendums. Consider this possibility: once every Indian gets his unique ID, and if all of India is wired up with public and private broadband, anyone can e-vote on any issue. Cost-effective e-referendums may be the way forward to make democracy a continuous consultative process. In a way, Anna Hazare’s referendum on the Jan Lokpal Bill in Kapil Sibal’s constituency – though flawed – is really the way forward. While legislatures should legislate, they can also learn to listen to the voice of the people more regularly. Myth 2: Government is – or has - the solution to all problems. The truth is a bit different. Governments can be part of the solution or part of the problem. The fact is government cannot do everything. The Right believes that government must get out of business and stick to maintaining law and order and defence. The Left, always suspicious of the private sector, will say government must be the people’s watchdog in everything, apart from running basic things like education and health services. The political Centre would opt for a mix of the two views. Both positions are partly wrong. Reason: governments can succeed only if important elements in society oversee it and support it. Just one example is enough to prove the merit of this argument: security is a government function, but can any government guarantee it without public support? Look how easily a few terrorists killed over one score people in Mumbai’s blasts last month. The same argument works in every sphere where government is involved. Government must work with society - not separately. [caption id=“attachment_57781” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The government’s job is to enable, oversee, underwrite and arbitrate: it does not have to do things that others can do, though that option always remains.AFP”] [/caption] Left to themselves, governments create huge bureaucracies that ultimately feed only themselves. In India, we have seen an overbearing government create hurdles to business, run public sector units into the ground, and allow huge amounts of taxpayer money to be wasted in political schemes that are intended to buy votes. The government’s job is to enable, oversee, underwrite and arbitrate: it does not have to do things that others can do, though that option always remains. If no one wants to set up an airline, the government can enter the picture. If everyone wants to set them up, governments should exit. A corollary: to ensure credibility, government should not be both player and judge. Governments must thus focus on policy, and not run businesses. If it runs a business, it must be at “arm’s length” – to use the PMO’s famous phrase in the 2G scandal. Another corollary: if we accept the proposition that government’s job is to enable, it means that even in key social areas like education and health, this is its prime job. It does not mean government should not run schools, but the more important job is to ensure that schools are set up and overseen by the right people. Governments should also not try to do everything itself. Just as it is now creating public-private partnerships to build infrastructure, every government function — whether it is overseeing NREGA payments or regulating the markets — should have members from the public who are not part of the political dispensation associated with it. This will avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure wider acceptability of decisions. In this context, Anna Hazare’s idea that the Lokpal should have eminent persons associated with it is absolutely right. Also, why should taxpayers — who fund the bulk of the budget — not have a say on how well the money is spent? (This is not to give them a veto on spending, which is a sovereign and democratic function, but to give them a say in how effectively money is spent on chosen schemes. The schemes themselves have to be decided by the elected government). Myth 3: Governments cannot go bust. Hence, there is (or was) no question of a US debt default. Examine this argument a bit more closely, and what we see is this logic: since governments can indefinitely print notes, the government can never default on its debts. But is this really so? In a technical sense, no government can default. India can print rupees, and so can China the yuan. But the true definition of a default is a mix of two things: inability to repay, and/or a willingness to repay only in debased currency. When you print notes ad infinitum you debase the currency. What you are returning to the lenders is a devalued dollar, a devalued rupee. It is thus a default of sorts. It’s like printing fake notes. Even the ISI can do it. If the Greeks could print the euro on their own, they wouldn’t be running to Angela Merkel with a begging bowl. In sum: no country is, in this sense, immune to default, not even the US. By assuming this, we are guilty of using the “this is different” argument: that some things are not subject to the laws of economics. The argument was used to suggest that dotcoms need not be run like businesses – and hence wouldn’t go bust in 2000-01. They did. The argument was used to say Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch was unsinkable. They sank. It is now being used to say the US can never go bust. It probably won’t, but not because it can’t. It will not go bust if it returns to sensible economics after the S&P downgrade. Continues on the next page Myth 4: The state is mightier than individuals. This is apparently true – and increasingly wrong. Sure, the state can squash you, if it wants to. But you can strike back, too. Technology has now equalised retaliatory power. Just think: 10 years ago the US was the world’s only superpower. Then 9/11 happened. In 10 years, the US economy is in a mess, its accounts in a shambles. One man’s vision – Osama bin Laden’s – was the cause of this downfall. A few million dollars spent by Osama has caused the US to spend $3-4 trillion fighting two unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama may have dumped Osama’s body in the Arabian Sea as a form of emotional closure on behalf of the American people, but the US has lost the war against terror. So, who is more powerful, the committed individual or the all-powerful state? [caption id=“attachment_57805” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Effective policing is the answer to crime and corruption. AFP”] [/caption] If we ask ourselves the above question, it is obvious we need to revisit the idea of how we deal with terror. Terror always wins, whether it kills one person or hundreds. For it imposes costs on everybody. This is how the US economy was brought down. So what do we do about terror ? I don’t have the answers, but answers from both Left and Right are wrong. We can’t create a police state, nor can we give human rights excessive importance. Or, maybe, there is a third way, too. Myth 5: Citizens have only rights, and no duties. The state has no rights, only duties. This, unfortunately, is the ultimate reason why states can fail. Rights can be overt, and duties can be merely a list of things that should not be done, but somewhere duties need to be given due importance. The idea that citizens have only rights and no duties emerged from the concept of the almighty state, where people were the ones that needed protection from a Godzilla state. But we now know that individuals, and groups, are equal to the state in many ways. No state can survive citizens who are only demanding rights. Both sides of the equation – rights and duties – are vital. The other way to look at the issue is to ask: does the state also have rights? If states only have duties to defend citizens, but no right to defend themselves, it is an impossibly unbalanced mandate. Either we must rethink the concept of state of rights and duties. We have to discuss the balance between rights and obligations – both of citizens and states. Myth 6: Groups have a right to secede on the basis of self-determination. This is the biggest legacy of the 20th century – when the world was decolonised and then herded into two ideological camps during the Cold War – that we need to debunk. In a globalised world, there are no distinct majorities and minorities. Also, the old majorities created by ethnic, religious and racial identities are not the only ones we need to worry about. New majorities and minorities on the basis of ideology (Tea Party), personal inclinations and gender are emerging, which also need to be taken into account. The only logical way to go forward is to abandon the idea of creating states on the basis of any one identity, and instead opt for multi-identity ones with international or regional freedom guarantees. This means national boundaries need not be changed, but changing the concept of the nation-state to focus on constitutionalism that goes beyond narrow laws that privilege once group over another. A corollary: No people have any right to create a state with only one identity in mind. Even if 100 percent of your people are of one race or disposition, one can’t presume that there won’t be a difference of opinion tomorrow. No state can proscribe future differentiation. There can be no Hindu state ever, nor any Saudi Arabia in the future. Another corollary: Azaadi is the natural state of all human beings, including groups. Political secession is not as important as effective devolution of power – from centre to states to districts to panchayats. India needs to become a proper federation. A Gujarat needs as much azaadi to meet the aspirations of its people as a Kashmir. Myth 7: Effective policing is the answer to crime and corruption. This, in effect, is the broad thrust of Team Anna’s argument for a strong Jan Lokpal. The motive is understandable, for no law is worth the paper it is written on if it is not enforceable. So policing is a must. But no state can ever police everything. No Lokpal can guarantee effective policing. And it’s not about honesty alone. The best way to reduce corruption is to reduce the economic incentive for it. This calls for reforms in areas ranging from electoral funding to public interface systems that require no monitoring so that the need to give a bribe does not arise. This way, a Lokpal can look at egregious corruption, and not under each carpet. Myth 8: The death sentence should be abolished. It is legalised murder. Now, this is a popular position with libertarians, but one is not arguing about whether or not the death sentence is good or bad. One needs to look underneath and find the answers. [caption id=“attachment_57797” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Society’s position on the death penalty makes sense only if we are willing to fundamentally examine our reasons for seeking retribution. AFP”] [/caption] Let’s understand what the justice system is all about. It is about retribution. It’s not about righting a wrong. It’s about an eye for an eye – or something like that. Why do we want criminals to go to jail? Because we think what they did is wrong, and hence want retribution. We want closure. We are not happy if they merely say sorry for we can never know if they mean it. Why are we happy with sending someone to prison for robbing a bank? Because we think this is retribution enough. Why are Mumbaikars unhappy about Maria Susairaj being released for getting only three years in prison for her part in the murder and disposal of the body of Neeraj Grover? Our sense of outrage over inadequate retribution is apparent. Why do we want to send Narendra Modi to jail for 2002? Again, it’s about retribution. Because the victims of 2002 may get their sense of closure only with revenge on this issue. Getting closure means revenge. Since the state does not allow you to exact revenge as an individual, it does so itself through an elaborate ritual called the justice system. Now, let’s come to the death sentence. When it is awarded in the rarest of rare cases, it is a form of closure that matches the crime. So why is it wrong? If the argument is that retribution is not the objective of the justice system, then we shouldn’t be punishing anybody for robbery or defalcation either. In fact, the only logical reason for not backing the death penalty is the probability that we could have got the wrong person. If we send a wrong person to jail for robbery, we can at least compensate him when he comes out. But what if we send him to his death? But where there is no doubt about guilt, where’s the problem? Society’s position on the death penalty makes sense only if we are willing to fundamentally examine our reasons for seeking retribution.