Time mag poll: If Kejriwal is 'influential', we're in trouble

In Time magazine’s annual poll of the “ most influential people in the world”, only one Indian figures: anti-corruption activist-turned politician Arvind Kejriwal. As he lies in an physically enfeebled condition on the eighth day of his fast over inflated power bills in Delhi, Kejriwal is doing rather well in the polling, and is currently coming in fourth on the list.  It’s still early days, of course: voting goes on until 12 April, and the final 100 names, which the magazine’s editors will decide, will be made public on 18 April. But just the fact that he’s holding his ground admirably - he’s polled five times as many votes thus far as Barack Obama, for instance - says something. But it’s a somewhat disquieting message. Precisely what criteria Time magazine invokes while drawing up its “long list”  of the world’s most influential people isn’t abundantly clear. And, to offer the usual caveats, while a poll of magazine readers offers glimpse into the way they see the world - and elevate the profile of those on the list - it has little more than chatter value in the real world. But to the extent that the choice of Kejriwal - as the only Indian on  the long list - suggests that when Time magazine’s editors poke their heads out of their ivory tower and peer at India, they see him as arguably the most influential person, it is deeply troubling. [caption id=“attachment_673011” align=“alignright” width=“380”]  The solutions that Kejriwal offers are worse than the disease. AP[/caption] That’s because Kejriwal’s worldview, as it has evolved since the time he energised the anti-corruption movement in 2011, represents the revival of a regressive statist economic model, which has failed India in previous decades. It is precisely bad ideas like those that don’t need amplification, which is the effect that a good ranking on Time magazine’s poll will have. As I've argued earlier , Kejriwal appears to have misread the lessons from India’s economic history since Independence, and particularly since the economy was opened up in 1991, If there is one core learning that ought to have emerged from India’s developmental experience, it is this: Big Government, which imposes itself in your face in every way and becomes the ultimate determinant of people’s destiny, is a disaster. Kejriwal looks around himself, sees mass poverty as a result of failed socialist policies over 65 years - and conclude that what India needs is yet more of the same socialist policies. He sees “crony capitalists” feeding off national resources - from land to water to natural resources like coal to  telecom spectrum -on the cheap, and concludes - erroneously  that profit-making in its entirety is a crime. He sees the maai-baap sarkar has failed to deliver on its populist promises - and yet his only solution is an even bigger, more benevolent maai-baap sarkar, with bigger and more extravagant populist schemes. It is true, of course, that the government has been complicit in allowing “crony capitalists”  to walk away with “national resources”  on the cheap.  But the cure that Kejriwal offers - of yet more statism - is worse than the disease. For all his philosophical explorations on the merits of swarajya, Kejriwal’s conduct and articulations in the few months since he turned a “career politician” have positioned him on the far Left of the political spectrum. And, worse, he infuses that regressive worldview with populism of an extreme variety. As I'd noted on another occasion , Kejriwal is less of a ’leader’ and more of a ‘follower’. His preferred manner of contributing to the evolution of policy is to seek out views from those at the grassroots - without any consideration of whether they are sufficiently informed of the facts of the matter and the nuances of public policymaking. And since people typically don’t vote against their own self-interest, it finds manifestation in the validation of the most egregious rent-seeking behaviour among his constituency. If Kejriwal’s idea were to be accepted as the template for democracy and for policymaking, there is in fact no need for an executive or even a legislature. Governments would run on auto-pilot and policy measures would take effect merely by resorting to referendums on every issue of public discourse. And if there is a telling illustration of Kejriwal’s paucity of ideas, it is reflected in his return to the gimmicky fast, which is where he started off with Anna Hazare on the anti-corruption campaign. To be fair, the problems that bedevil India - from the economy to the fractured polity - are primarily the fault of other parties and political formations. Kejriwal is merely the Johnny-come-lately to a thoroughly messed up political landscape. But the solutions that he proffers are even more regressive than the ones that landed us in this fine mess. That such a leader, who brings a fire-brand appeal among a constituency of India’s youth, should be considered arguably India’s most “influential” person  - and should find his worldview amplified to yet more easily swayed constituencies - perhaps means that we are in big trouble.