Contain, if not reverse, drift in federal governance

The Constitution of India provides for a three-branch government — legislative, executive and judiciary. The functions of the government are performed at the levels of Central, state and local self-governments. All these have distinct powers and responsibilities with a defined system of checks and balances to maintain accountability. The country, however, has an asymmetrical federal structure. The Centre has a greater role in ensuring the equitable growth of all regions and holds the key to maintaining territorial unity and integrity of the country.

Jawaharlal Nehru, during the Constituent Assembly debates, had cautioned that “it would be injurious to the interests of the country to provide for a weak Central authority, which would be incapable of ensuring peace, of coordinating vital matters of common concern and of speaking effectively for the whole country in the international sphere.”

But there are some significant federal features in the Constitution. Dr BR Ambedkar assured the Constituent Assembly: “The Constitution is a Federal Constitution. The Union is not a league of states… nor are the states the agencies of the Union, deriving powers from it. Both the Union and the states are created by the Constitution; both derive their respective authority from the Constitution.”

The governments perform their role by defining appropriate public policies within the overall framework of the Constitution. But policymaking is an arduous task, more so in our country due to its plurality and diversity. It is also an outcome of the socio-political activity and cannot be distant from the existing realities. The policies are expected to address people’s concerns in a manner that is accepted by most, if not all, segments of the population. In pragmatic federalism, evidence-based policies are expected to achieve a more cohesive and prosperous society.

A look back at some policies reflects that, as a successful nation and an emerging economy, our national policies had invariably responded to the ground situation and people’s aspirations. Post-independence, the public sector was developed to lay strong foundations to prevent any major social or economic disruption. Pursuing the mixed economy, core industries were developed by the government to stimulate growth.

The nationalisation of banks further gave a fillip to the pro-poor economic agenda of the governments. The governments emphasised reaching out to the poor to ameliorate their economic miseries as the trickle-down theory had not worked. But, the growth of the private sector and inflow of FDI was stunted, and as a result, the country experienced higher inflation and lower economic growth. The rising stagflation compelled policymakers to go for economic reforms that unfolded in 1992.

All these years, there was near unanimity and synergy in the public policy arena, with no visible drift away from the national goals. Surely, there were differences among the mainstream political parties, and these became more pronounced in 1969 when a dominant national political party was bifurcated for the first time. Political divisions became more visible in 1989 when the era of coalition politics started. The nation was always in focus, but with the rising ambitions of some unrelenting socio-political groups, the country witnessed instability in governance. However, the national agenda was reasserted with the evolution of rules of coalition governments.

The most successful governments of these times were the coalitions headed by PV Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh. Despite ideological differences and varying political agenda, national interest remained the key factor in policymaking. And the policies of the Central and state governments were mostly synergised. These were contextualised to meet the requirements of the states and focussed to create employment through better education, skill development, infusion of capital, and creation of wealth across all sectors of the economy.

The greater need for policy synergy that strengthened federalism in the country is realised now. It may be an illusion that only a strong government can strengthen the foundations built over the years. In a country with diverse cultures and thoughts, the governments can reach every nook and corner through policies that fully reflect upon the expectations of our population.

The recent policy drift, though being attributed to varying political ideologies, seems to be rising owing to an inadequate reflection of the governments on the ground situation and the needs of the affected population. Some key players appear to be disinclined to adjust policies to the changing realities, thereby changing their impact. They seem to be using globalisation as a recuse. However, decentralisation is a virtue and an imperative even in an increasingly competitive and market-driven world.

In India, alongside the economic premise of policy decisions, the contextual social logic is difficult to ignore. The polarisation of society on any lines is retrograde. It may delay the national goal of an equitable and forward-looking society that has a better quality of life for all with some universal basic income and living standards.

The recent tweaking of the policies on taxation, agriculture and trade indicates an inadequate appreciation of the country’s diverse socio-economic milieu, which is our strength. Else, we will be no different from a theological country. Our policies need to avoid the possible social and economic upheavals that aggravate the miseries of the people.

In the haste and anxiety to grow faster, the established process of consultations, analysis and review of stakeholders’ claims cannot be ignored for a wider appreciation of the policies. The states and local authorities should be allowed their legitimate space in policy planning and implementation to build a mentality of federal governance. Else, some alternative — administrative, legislative or judicial solutions — will be evolved to fix the problems that are raised by the common man. Such gamification may prolong the process of achieving a mature federal democracy. If allowed to persist, such a governance drift and lack of synergy in policies will become politically risky.

The key players in policymaking may use distraction and blame avoidance strategies to gain support and soften opposition, but for a more sustainable policy arrangement, the drift should be contained, if not reversed, through consensus and a common understanding of the requirements of the growth of a plural and more cohesive society based on human values.

We should let hundreds of flowers bloom for this long-cherished goal.

Views are personal