Political reforms a must for coalitions to succeed

NEW DELHI: Stating that India faces a crisis of governance, leading economist Bimal Jalan has called for wide-ranging political reforms if coalition governments are to become viable and stable.

Jalan has also demanded a review of the division of political powers between the central and state governments, with New Delhi having a greater say on security matters and states getting more powers in economic and financial areas.

In his latest book, 'India's Politics: A View from the Backbench' (Penguin), the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India has suggested several measures that he feels are a must if the country has to make a mark politically and economically.

"Political reforms are now necessary despite all the positive developments in India's economy and its established traditions of electoral freedom," he says. "If multi-party coalitions are here to stay (as is likely), reforms are necessary to make them more viable and more stable."

Giving the example of the government's 2006 decision to go back on disinvestments in public enterprises because of opposition from a coalition partner, Jalan says, "If this become an unavoidable feature of coalition politics in the long run, it would have substantially adverse consequences for the working of India's democracy...

"Unless some new rules are put in place, the governments formed by such coalitions may not have much authority or credibility. In such situations... it is not difficult to visualize the threat to the country's economic prospects and other vital national interests."

Jalan, who headed the RBI from 1997 to 2003 before becoming a member of the Rajya Sabha, says the administrative system has become largely non-functional and unresponsive to the economic and social priorities of the country.

He says the role of ministers in the governance of the country has increased while their accountability has decreased substantially; there has been increasing politicization of the bureaucracy; and multiple government agencies are mostly working at cross purposes.

In the process, he says, decision-making has become "highly time consuming and complex".

According to Jalan, a major failure of the past two decades has been in the pace of poverty alleviation and provision of minimum public services to the poor.

In the political sphere, he favours an end to monopoly of leaders over political parties so that there is inner-party democracy. He also wants a reduction in the vast scope of discretionary powers available to politicians in office.

"Corruption has become all pervasive," Jalan says, adding that no battle against poverty can be won unless corruption is rooted out.

"At the same time, it has to be recognized - however painful it may be for the average citizens to do so - that the systemic relationship between politics and corruption is increasingly becoming 'circular' because of the high cost of fighting elections."

So the author supports the idea of state funding of elections, at least partially.

Jalan wants ministers to be held responsible for the performances of their ministries; administrative reforms to make the civil service more accountable and responsible; judiciary to be additional checkpoint on legality of actions taken by the legislature and the executive; clear rules to prevent paralysis of parliament's functioning; curbs on smaller parties so that they don't hold larger coalitions to ransom; and lowering the bar on corruption.

"We cannot, and must not, sit back on our laurels and bask in the glory of past achievements and the universal praise for India's emergency as an economic power of the 21st century," he says.

"Unless we take resolute and urgent action, India may not be able to realize its full potential."