Give Young Turks a chance

The Conservative-Liberal coalition government in Britain has just completed 100 days in office gathering many laurels to its credit least expected from it in so short a time, and giving indications of more promising reforms to come. Most people believed that the failure of the Conservative party to secure a majority of seats in the

elections would act as a disincentive to attempt any substantial reforms in the economy, but the way the new government is going ahead with radical reforms has shown that given competent political leadership and courage of convictions, the parliamentary system of democracy can be an effective instrument for even revolutionary changes.
A coalition government is in power in Britain 65 years after World War II and it went into action within a few days of being sworn in to disprove the general belief that coalitions are generally slow in taking major decisions. But both David Cameron, the Prime Minister and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister have taken a series of important decisions which would have been considered impossible before. The fact that the first trimming of government expenditure done by the new government could reduce the deficit by $9.4 billion has convinced the people in general and future investors how serious the coalition led by two young but determined leaders is in pulling the economy from the track of recession. The proposal to transfer schools to parents and teachers and to trim expenditure on certain items of defence may look too drastic, but taking into account the gravity of the crisis, these measures will win for the government the trust from the people, for attempting to do now what cannot be postponed any further.
As against the promptness and courage shown by the young leaders of the coalition government in Britain, India has not been able to introduce any worthwhile programme to facilitate the reduction of poverty or ensure better incomes and employment opportunities for the poorer sections of the people, the most important objectives of our country’s development programmes. Even though the government has an eminent economist as its head, the impact of its reformist zeal is hardly felt by the ordinary people and disillusionment against the government has already set in, though four more years are left for the second UPA government.
What is the real reason in the sharp difference between the two scenarios in Britain and India respectively? Among the many reasons I will have no hesitation to say that the inadequacy of the political leadership at all levels to cope with the challenges of the day is the real reason for the lack of any move forward. There is serious hesitation among the leaders at the top and second levels of most political parties in India to attempt any radical changes in economic policy if it involves the risk of loss of power. To hold positions of power in the government and Parliament seems to be the only objective dear to the hearts of most politicians but there is no firm determination to reduce the rigours of poverty or usher in better employment opportunities for the disadvantaged groups among people. Elections in India rarely throw up young leaders with the capacity to inspire the confidence of the people and thus a new election becomes a repetition of the previous ones, without leading to any visible changes in the lives of the ordinary people.
The blame for inaction is generally thrown at only the top leaders of political parties, ignoring the fact that leaders at the second levels of the party hierarchy are constantly engaged in gathering more power for themselves. One such among them is that several Central ministers are combining in themselves positions of general secretaries of the party in charge of party affairs in certain states. These functionaries behave as if they are the representatives of the party supremo in the states concerned and there have been several cases when they have misled the party high command by their support to one faction within the party in its fight against another.
Whatever might have been the justification in the past for some ministers of the Central Cabinet being also entrusted with the post of general secretaries of the Congress and placed in charge of Congress affairs in a particular state, it would be good for the party’s future as an all-India party to give up this practice altogether. The person in charge of a Central ministry represents the interests of the entire country, and not of any particular party in a state. A minister has to function always as minister for that portfolio for the whole country and not within a party. It will be difficult to accept the argument that such double duty for Central ministers has become inevitable for dearth of experienced leaders. In fact, practices like this have prevented the rise of real competent leaders at the second level of the Congress hierarchy. The Congress has been attracting several highly qualified and dedicated young men and women to its ranks in the recent past, but most of them remain underutilised by the party or by the government because of the continuing preference for age and consequent combination of several posts in one person.
Another unfortunate practice which has become rampant in the Congress Party of late is for senior ministers and party functionaries to express their differences over important administrative matters publicly and in creating the impression of the government being a divided house. The ministers have perfect freedom to express their views within the Cabinet but once a decision is made by the Cabinet it is binding on all the ministers, and any criticism of its decision by individual ministers negates the basic principles of collective responsibility in the parliamentary system. Unfortunately some senior second level leaders occupying the position of general secretaries etc. keep on criticising individual Central ministers and their policies taking the stand that since they are not members of the Cabinet they are not governed by the rule of collective responsibility.
Recent trends like some of those mentioned above have reduced the scope for the rise of new leadership from within the party and the party loses the benefit of fresh leadership. That is why it has failed to produce leaders like Mr Cameron in times of real crisis and is seen by many people as lacking in the will to take the risks involved in changes. Staleness in the management of party affairs is the greatest danger facing national parties like the Congress and the earlier the parties recognise this, the better for the parties and the country.

P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra