The Administration of Politics

"The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues, through the election of individuals, who are to assemble in order to carry out its will." But as Joseph Schumpeter puts it, “The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote”

Politics is a fine act of juggling, not necessarily between the good of the people and the law of the land, but more often between vested self-interest and the vested self-interest. Although, it might seem that it essentially is a simple task, no one would know better than the politicians and those who carry their orders. Policies are framed, crores are sanctioned in grants and wavers, schemes are drawn, files are made, all this to achieve the common good of the common man. Various forces play on the mind of the politician when decisions are taken. The Political class achieves its objectives by surreptitiously ‘ordering’ the administration to do their bidding in the process to maintain a clean image.

But is it that easy for a politician to make decisions? Wouldn’t the tribulations that plague the society be relegated to unknown territory, decades ago, if these policies indeed worked? And does merely having an efficient administration suffice in the intense job of managing an entire nation? Politics and Administration go a long way in satisfying the “people’s” wishes. But does every wish of the common man get fulfilled? If Nokia were to produce mobiles which would never have any technical problems, would you have gone back to Nokia, ever? A similar logic applies to Politics. Politics is the art of getting people to depend on you, rather than teaching them how to fish.

Political compulsions frequently force administrative decisions which might not be good in the long run, but ‘appear’ good in the short run. Take for example, the Singur plant. Fighting for the rights of the farmers, Mamata Banerjee, forced the Tatas out of Bengal. The administration of that state couldn’t do much, but the Political class of Gujarat rolled out a red carpet for the Tatas. To take a look at the compulsions, we have the farmers’ ‘apparent’ interest on one hand, and the progressive industrialization of the state to create more jobs on the other. The ‘Ma, Maati, Maanush’ cry of the Bengal Tigress, has today lead her to thumping victories in the local elections. But then, could the administration have done anything to stop her? Was it a calculated risk or a farcical silence? It was nothing short of vote-bank politics though.

These are local issues. Similarly, there is the diplomatic tightrope to be managed. At any given point of time, there have been atleast two states or two nations at loggerheads. So when there are two parties a politician needs to please, he would delay taking any decisions and ensure that his popularity isn’t affected on either side of the fence. Take the Canadian Visa row for example – India did not criticize the Canadian authorities and merely expressed a meek displeasure and ‘gave time’ to the Canadian’s to ‘correct’ their stance. For the record, India is to conclude a civil nuclear energy deal with the Canadian’s this year, not to forget the trade balance has been in India's favour ever since 1993. India's total exports to Canada were Rs 3507 crore in 2003 whereas imports amounted to Rs 3336 crore. A curt reply from the foreign secretary would have had far reaching consequences and thus the foreign office feigned initial ignorance.

But why give so much importance to the people or the diplomatic relations? As Joseph Schumpeter describes a politician, “What businessmen do not understand is that exactly as they are dealing in oil so I am dealing in votes.” As mentioned earlier, it is about making decisions which have a profound positive effect on oneself. And why would the executive deny helping the corrupt politicians, if they can fill their own pockets too? According to a Forbes report, in Bihar, more than 80% of the subsidized food aid to poor is stolen by corrupt officials. But this is corruption, just one of the facets of politics and administration.

To exist in politics is a profession in itself. So when you are in power, you need to quickly make your bucks, unless you are 100% sure, you will be back in the seat of power even after five years. Commercially, it does not seem to be wrong. Profit is what should motivate you and it well is. But then are your social responsibilities not of any importance? And should you not be responsible for the amount in salary that the government pays you?

But we do have success stories. Incidences wherein the Political class have formed an intrinsic mechanism with the administrative wing, to rise up to all possible challenges the nation might face, the country coming first and last always, in Swami Vivekananda’s words. We have empirical evidence that when personal goals are subservient to the nation’s pride, there is efficiency and an effective administration, not only of the policies, but also of the future of the nation. We have examples in the nations such as Norway, Switzerland, etc, where even the politicians lead an honest life, quite unbelievable but true. What we need is mass awareness, not only of our rights, but also how to use them. We need to evolve a system of good governance and accountability. As Ruth Grant puts it, “Ingenuity in devising effective mechanisms, and the ability to synchronize their operation, will be more important for controlling abuses of power than a single-minded and mechanical application of the ideals of democracy.” Our objective should be to produce and sustain various kind of accountability systems based on a positive reception of the conflicting and complementary possibilities within the democratic structure.