Why has the political class not struck a chord with its younger, aspirational constituency?
What is to be done?? This was the question that captioned Vladimir Lenin?s political pamphlet defining his vision for Russia. It was a straightforward tract and it succeeded in galvanising the cadre of Bolshevik revolutionaries. The same question has been on the lips of people across India over the past year. The slowdown in the economy, the rising incidence of social violence, the spate of public corruption scandals and the brutality of the gangrape in Delhi have compelled this question. People have answers? indeed, there has been no dearth of suggestions. The industry federations CII, FICCI and ASSOCHAM have a clear list of dos and don?ts for reinvigorating the economy; Anna Hazare pegged his prescription for tackling the malaise of corruption on the Lokpal and amidst the sorrow and anger that surrounded the Delhi gangrape, there has been a catalogue of suggestions on what must be done to bring greater security for women and in general alter the nature of the relationship between the genders. The police force should be strengthened; VIP security cover should be reduced; punishment must be swift and severe; Parliament must pass appropriate legislation; and educational curricula should specifically address social prejudice.
These responses have all, however, come with a questioning caveat. Will the authorities act? Will this time be different and promises delivered? There is a profound scepticism about the government?s willingness to take up the public cudgels. And for good reason. Little has been done to shift the needle.
Why is this so? Why is there such a gap between prescription and implementation? Is it that the government is not willing to respond, or is it that the system of which they are the custodians is not capable of meeting these demands? I do not have the answer, but as I reflected on the contrast between US President Barack Obama?s dash to Newtown in the wake of the shooting in which 20 children were killed and the deafening silence with which our leaders greeted the crowds gathered at India Gate, I wondered whether there was not both a generational and systemic explanation for the latter?s behaviour.
The people who congregated under Anna Hazare? s banner early last year, or who walked in candle-lit processions last month, were not there to make a specific economic demand ? la trade unions striking for higher wages. They were gathered to seek assurances of equity, justice, transparency and protection. Theirs was an emotional protest, catalysed by a kaleidoscope of feelings?the hope that the future will be better than the present, the fear that these hopes might get dashed because of unfair competition, the humiliation of social prejudice, the frustrations of existence in the face of pervasive petty corruption, the anger of beholding an indifferent, unresponsive and greedy ruling class. These were eclectic protests underpinned by a clear purpose. These people wanted the removal of the roadblocks that stood in the way of their aspirations. They wanted a level playing field. Above all, they wanted leadership that gave as much attention to this new politics of emotions as to the politics of elections.
That the government failed to discern this purpose is now plain for all to see. Instead of responding to this emotional upsurge, they responded with cold logic and bureaucratic rationality. They picked holes in the substance of Anna Hazare?s conception of a Lokpal, an easy exercise as the proposal was fundamentally flawed, rather than address the less-definable movement against corruption. They pulled out the rulebook and debated whether the chief minister or the Delhi police or the Union home ministry should bear accountability for the horrific crime committed in Delhi, rather than respond to the cry for a root and branch overhaul of security and moral values. Why such insensitivity? Why have our leaders failed to strike a chord with their burgeoning younger, aspirational constituency?
One certainly debatable answer could be that our leadership is generationally a step removed from this constituency. They understand, no doubt, the forces that drive this group. Their speeches are peppered with references to the implications of the forces of liberalisation, globalisation and technology. But do they really understand their psyche? Do they empathise with the pressures that must build in a family that has struggled to push their kids onto the treadmill of economic growth, only to find that their way is blocked by the already rich and powerful? I wonder. Clearly, if they did, one would have seen a greater exercise of emotional leadership than the rote and rule-driven responses we did see.
A second explanation needs also to be noted. Ours is a complex, imprecise and dynamic society. Its problems are fluid and indeterminate. They are difficult to define and there is no ?single harmony of truth into which everything, if it is genuine, must fit?, to quote Isaiah Berlin. The gap, in other words, between the ?what? and the ?how? cannot be bridged directly. It requires (and here I draw from John Kay?s recent book, Obliquity: Why Our Goals Are Best Achieved Indirectly) ?a non-linear and oblique pathway (moving forward), step by step and in small degrees… adapting, negotiating and compromising (to overcome) irresolvable uncertainties?. The paradox is that this is precisely what our system discourages. Our governance structure is straitjacketed by rules and procedures. It discourages a break with precedence.
We have answers to the Leninist question but we have not given these answers practical shape. This is because of the systemic pressure to stay within a prescribed frame and to implement in accordance with established procedure. There is much merit in rational decision-making, but given the nature of our society and the demands that are now being placed on our system, this process of decision-making is not working. What is now required are leaders that accept the reality of the politics of emotions and the fact that such politics do not allow for a direct Leninist-type connect between the ?what? and the ?how?. What is now required are leaders that will push off the beaten track and buck procedure if that clashes with the courage of their conviction and judgement.
riter is former chairman of Shell India. Views are personal
