From Meet The Press this Sunday

Doris Kearns Goodwin & Jon Meacham in Meet The Press on Obama's First 100 Days....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

My Path to Sustainable Development

While I love to say that I like to ramble, one of the aims of my blog has always been to stimulate discussion on the outlook towards right governance & appropriate political philosophy among like-minded folks. My youth was spent in concluding that the political class for the most part is useless & a government free of corruption is the solution to all ills. If you think that this seems to be another arrow in my quiver of incredibly botched logic, you are not wrong. Believe me, I have a great track record on this front.

My approach gradually changed over time. Gone was the idealism. In came an attempt to look at things in a more nuanced manner. A realization that all ills are not equal and that there is no silver bullet. That sustainable development involves doing several things simultaneously. And the conclusion that the solution does not have to be perfect the first time. What is needed is the will to make a difference. And the will to make a start - somewhere.

Not a day passes goes by without me thinking that a lot of us have been incredibly lucky. We have been provided good education, landed cushy jobs, and have advanced professionally, financially & personally. We are blessed with a wonderful support network of family & friends that help brighten & enrich our days. Though I have no objections to furthering our own personal cause, I believe it is also important that we take some time to think about the uplift of the fellow citizen. And his path towards development.

I am a die-hard capitalist. I believe in open markets and free trade. I cheer small government & low fiscal deficits. I espouse the cause of the private enterprise in finding meaningful solutions. I am to the “right of centre” when it comes to economic philosophy. At the same time, I do not believe that the government is the problem. Government has a role. To protect its citizens. Establish property rights. Define the rule of law & enforce it. In a country of 1.1 billion, this in itself is a large ask. Let the government truly do this well.

This might be inconsistent with my previous blog where I espouse sustainable bottom-up rural development. Not at all. I still believe that bottom-up development is the way to go. In a country as large as ours, it is unfair to say to 400+ million that the benefits of the economy will ‘trickle down’ to them in 10 years and that they have to patient until then. Try telling that to the family of a farmer who has committed suicide because his todays were becoming unmanageable. Try telling that to a new parent who knows that if the child does not get into school in 5 years, its future is compromised.

Where I differ from the socialists is that I do not think that bottom-up development has to be actively managed by the government. Let the government limit itself to setting goals and laying clear markers. Let it be a facilitator of finance when required. Let it be an enabler towards the definition of a measured framework. And importantly, let it enforce the rule of the law that preserves this structure.

The management of development must be in the hands of the individual or a group of individuals. They may decide that the solution to sustainable development may lead through cooperatives (think Amul). Or non-governmental organizations. Or include innovative approaches such as micro-finance (Grameen Bank, Kiva, SKS). Or involve the private sector (ITC e-choupal). The means do not matter as long as it is best left to the individuals to make that choice. In short, I call for an approach that provides the key to one’s destiny in one’s own hands. Self-confidence is a force multiplier.

What do you think? Is bottom-up approach to development that espouses free market principles and minimal-to-none government involvement the way to go? Or does the government have to play a role? Or do you believe that the top-down capitalist approach is the ideal choice? You know where I stand. I would love to hear your side of the story. Post a comment or send me a note.

Bottom-up or Top-down?

An article in Business World several years ago had 2 Chief Ministers on its cover. One was Chandrababu Naidu, then CM of Andhra Pradesh & the other was Digvijay Singh, then CM of Madhya Pradesh. Chandrababu's model for growth was top-down. Promote and seek investments in the capital city, Hyderabad. Use the proceeds from the development initiatives to spur investments through the rest of the state. Digvijay Singh followed the opposite approach. Work towards social & rural development initiatives (bottom-up) - and the growth of the state would follow. Both Chief Ministers were good at what they did & won re-elections on the platform of development.

Don't get me wrong. This does not mean that neither leader promoted one over the expense of the other. What it does mean is that when you have finite funds for development, you need to make a choice. And the sector/area where more funds are deployed ultimately determines your overall track record & governing philosophy.

My sense on the NDA was that it tried more of the top-down approach during its period in office from 1999 to 2004. And its 'India Shining' campaign ultimately fell through because the fruits of development did not quite reach the rural folk to the extent required even after 5 years. My sense on the current UPA government on the other hand, is that it has followed a policy that has been more pro-rural. We will know whether this approach has worked when results come out in a month. At this moment however, the UPA seems to be better positioned.

And here is an article on the Wall Street Journal today that dwells on this thought.

Have a great weekend.

The Evolution of the Polity

It is election fever in India. Not all of them are impressed. Some of my friends have threatened not to read my blogs if I am going to write too much about elections. One of my overseas friends jokingly said "Why couldn't they play cricket in India and export elections to South Africa?"

What can I say? For a person who tuned to CNN as the first channel he ever watched when cable TV came to his home over 14 years ago, who watched every Indian election with fascination and anticipation since 1990, who was thrilled with his timing of landing in the US in April 2000 because the Presidential elections were just round the corner, who stayed up late in 2004 to watch Kerry lose Ohio, and who woke up at 6 AM India time in 2008 (I usually wake up after 8) to watch the live coverage of the results of the US presidential election, not thinking of elections is just impossible.

As an active observer of Indian elections for nearly 20 years, I am struck by how the 2 party system in India has gradually given way to a multi-polar structure. As the BJP rose in prominence in the early 90s, the chatter was about the 'irrelevance' of the Left parties in the future. We imagined the 'era' of coalition governments to be temporary & that the polity would be clearly cleaved into 2 contrasting ideologies - the Left of Centre (Congress) and the Right of Centre (BJP).

But regional chieftans had other ideas. Mayawati & Mulayam hold fort in UP. Nitish Kumar, Lalu & Ram Vilas Paswan control much of Bihar. Naveen Patnaik is the gentle giant in Orissa while the Buddha continues to smile in West Bengal. 20 years ago, the seat sharing formula in Tamil Nadu was simple. Congress will contest much of the Lok Sabha seats while its Dravidan partner will contest much of the local Assembly elections. And both parties won. Today, the Congress must consider itself lucky if it could cross 10 seats in TN, UP & Bihar. And the outlook for BJP is no better.

The slicing & dicing of the electorate is now a fine art. We may cringe when western media outlets report on the caste system in India & consider the opinion as biased. But there are folks in India who want to keep the 'caste factor' alive. And they aim to please this small sub-set. And 'lock' the vote. Parties that aim to provide a pan-India perspective notice see their traditional support being chipped by these usurpers.

All of this is fascinating. And to an extent, worrisome. While plurality is always welcome in democracy, one also knows that too many cooks spoil the broth. It took Benjamin Netanyahu over a month to form a government in Israel. The top 2 parties in Israel today hold 55 seats. And the total number of seats in the Knesset? 120. We could be in a similar situation in India when the combined total of the 2 national parties that are on the opposing sides of a spectrum falls below the half-way mark (270).

It is my wish that whatever be the rainbow coalition that will be cobbled by the end of May, it lasts 5 years. Stability is the key to economic growth. And to a lot of other things. Elections are indeed fascinating. And they keep the junkie in me awake all night. But they are so only because they occur every 5 years. Let us keep it that way.