“America is in a
defining moment. This is the wealthiest nation in history. Yet many Americans
feel that the dream so many generations fought for is slowly slipping away,”
said Barack Obama, the Democratic Presidential candidate for 2008, in an
article he has recently written for the Wall
Street Journal. He continues: “President Bush outlined a limited agreement
with lenders to ensure that some families don’t face higher mortgage payments they
can’t afford. That’s why…I have outlined a program to help make it easier for
middle-class families, not speculators, to renegotiate or refinance their
mortgages… It’s going to take a new kind of leadership to strengthen our
middle-class and make sure America’s economic future is secure—leadership that
can challenge the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together,
and rally this nation around a common purpose. And that is exactly the kind of
leadership I intend to offer as president of the United States.”
That is the
reaction of Obama to the US subprime loan mess that has rocked the global
financial markets besides adversely impacting the lives of commoners, proposing
to not only contain its aftermath but also prevent such recurrences. Contrast
this with what we have witnessed during the recently concluded election
campaign in Gujarat, and one would be left aghast.
India, after the
launch of economic reforms aiming at ‘market-driven development’ has
encountered a new paradigm: the resultant growth has widened the inter-regional
and intra-regional inequalities. This new-found growth has only made the
difference between ‘growth’, economic growth sans equity, and ‘development’,
growth with equity—as witnessed in the country prior to the launching of
economic reforms—more glaring. The income/consumption inequality as measured by
Gini index increased to 30.5% in 2004 from 27.7% in 1994, the period from which
our growth started accelerating. Simultaneously, agriculture—the mainstay of
livelihood for 60% of the population—has been marginalized. This new twist in
political economy, as the Prime Minister once observed, posed a new challenge:
“If those who are better off do not act in a more socially responsible manner,
our growth process may be at risk, our polity may become anarchic and our
society may get further divided. We cannot afford these luxuries.”
That is not all.
There is disturbing evidence that today the poor in the country gets little or
no share of the cake that information technology and other related services
generate. The less endowed are thus deeply distressed with the diminishing
value of their lot. Looking at the progress of the neo-rich, those who are left
out of the benefits of ‘growth’ that the reforms have brought, perceive them as
the perpetrators of their poverty. This breeds ill-will and resentment among
the excluded. It obviously disturbs the harmony between these two groups. And,
as has already been witnessed, this discomfiture between the two groups could
transform into hatred, and may tend to breed extremist groups. And this revolt
cannot be set right through routine stereotypes. It must be encountered
frontally with all the might that is at the disposal of the whole society
through innovative measures. In the ultimate analysis, it is the governance of
nation that is accountable for setting the nation on the right course. Which is
why the electorate and the politicians have a greater responsibility towards
nurturing a spirit of accommodation among its citizens for aiming at ‘inclusive
growth’.
As against these
economic issues, let us examine what has happened in the recently concluded
poll campaign in the Gujarat elections. This time round, Modi, the present
Chief Minister of Gujarat, was reported to have focused his campaign more on
‘economic development’. Reports indicated that his initial campaign revolved
around what his government did: robust infrastructure built for making Gujarat
a hub of manufacturing sector, backed by a strong inflow of foreign investment,
and the enforced accountability among the public sector that have all
cumulatively resulted in a growth rate of 11% during last year.
Looking at the
BJP campaign, one naturally expected that the other contender for power—the
Congress Party—to focus on core economic issues of the state, such as
education, healthcare and inclusive development. But, to one’s dismay, it
slipped into the trap of usual stereotypes that are, of course, known to work
always, though, more often than not, negatively. The end result is: the whole
campaign slipped into the known rhetoric. In the process, the campaign lost
sight of the real issues that are bothering the electorate, particularly those
belonging to the lower strata: economic welfare. We thus failed in setting off
an open discussion that could have generated a well-reasoned intervention
strategy for handling the economic issues challenging the state. And such
public discussions and interactive reasoning are the very essence of democracy.
That is,
perhaps, the glaring difference between the leadership displayed by the
American political class as reflected in Obama’s writing and that of India as
revealed by the recent poll campaign in Gujarat. That leaves the man in the
street wondering: “When will we have a mature political system that works for
its citizens’ welfare?”
January, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment