India's selfish elite holds the Republic back

It is perplexing how the world’s most populous democracy is so flawed. How can a country, whose elections are cited as an exuberant example of people-power, produce governments that serve their people so badly?As an outsider, it would be inappropriate toenter into the debate about India’s internal political structures. But thebroader picture is troubling: the extent to which the aspirations and behaviourof citizens in the so-called democracies and authoritarian regimes haveconverged over the past 20 years of globalization.From Mumbai toShanghai to Dubai (to coin that phrase of whizkid financiers), via London andNew York, we have witnessed the erosion of liberties in our seemingly insatiablequest for wealth and our urge for an illusory security.The model for thisnew world order is Singapore. The city-state has a large number of well-educatedand well-travelled people keen to defend a system that requires an almostcomplete abrogation of freedom of expression in return for a good material life.This is the pact. In each country it varies; citizens hand over differentfreedoms in accordance with their own customs and priorities.Barrington Moore’s theories of “no bourgeoisie, nodemocracy” have been disavowed by these two decades of uber materialism.When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the assumption was that free markets and freesocieties would work in perfect harmony. Instead, people in all countries founda way to disengage from the political process while seeking greater comfort.Consumerism provided the ultimate anaesthetic.Economic growth,rather than being a force for democratic involvement, reinforced the confidenceof business and political elites. These neo-liberal advocates became consumed bytheir own intellectual overshoot, redefining democracy and liberty throughnotions such as privatization, profit maximization, disdain for the needs ofcivil society and social justice. What matters, particularly for themiddle class, are ‘private freedoms’ — the right to ownproperty; to run businesses according to contract law; the right to travelunimpeded and the right to determine one’s own personal life. Thepre-eminent freedom is financial — the right to earn money and consume itunimpeded. Public freedoms, such as free speech, free association andparticipatory politics become dispensable.So where does India, withits raucous public discourse and its flamboyant democracy, come into thisequation? As Pankaj Mishra points out, in order for India’s elite tofulfil its ambitions in a country of such poverty, inequality and misrule, ithad to create a parallel universe. The events of November 26, 2008 changed thatequation. Wealthy Indians’ fury at the Mumbai bombings arose from therealization that their pact had been broken. They never asked questions of thesecurity forces when violence was meted out to the less fortunate. But what theydid not expect, or take kindly to, was that their lives would be put at risk byincompetents at the home ministry, police department, army or intelligenceservices.Till then, the wealthy had demanded little from the stateand received only what they needed, such as the right to avoid fair taxation.They did not have to rely on lamentable public services. Their air conditionedSUVs would glide over the uneven roads; their diesel-fed generators would smoothover the cracks in the energy supply. The elite had been happy to secede fromactive politics.How different is this from other countries?Circumstances may vary but the trade-off remains the same in each country.It’s interesting to note the way the Indian and Chinese systems fare inthe delivery of good governance and liberty. In China, most of the wealthy findthe small pro-democracy movement an encumbrance. These political activists aredisturbing the pact that ensures one-party hegemony in return for socialstability, continual economic growth and respect for ‘private’freedoms. In return, individuals do not meddle with the state.Pallavi Aiyar, a journalist recently based in China, offers this neatcomparison: “While in China the Communist Party derived its legitimacyfrom delivering growth, in India a government derived its legitimacy simply fromhaving been voted in.” She adds, “The legitimacy of democracy inmany ways absolved Indian governments from the necessity of performing. TheChinese Communist Party could afford no such luxury.”Theproblem in India, particularly since economic liberalization in 1991, is notwealth creation. Nor is it democratic institutions. It is governance, theinability to deliver freedoms for the vast majority of its people. Politics andbusiness have worked together to use power as a means of enrichment. Thecomfortable classes could have been active in the public realm. Unlike inauthoritarian states, they would not have been punished for causing trouble.They chose not to. The level of complicity is, therefore, surely higher.