Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
FPTP gives at least SOME chance for majority governments to get established. PR gives no chance at all for that to happen.
That means governments become more confused, confounded and impotent. We get weak governments that can't deliver anything.
Now hold this thought. Let me take a little detour and come back to this.
I have been talking to some people in India's planning commission over the past few days and notice that the planning commission is beginning to propose some GOOD ideas – for the FIRST TIME EVER.
The speech that MMS gave while announcing reforms was based on a paper prepared by Arun Maira who has extensive private sector experience and has been broadly talking sensible things for some time. Maira headed BCG in India and is therefore skilled in strategic analysis. I'm astonished that the planning commission managed to get such a person. Not since Shenoy have we had a sensible planning commission member. [Actually, let me hold off on calling Maria "sensible" till I read his book, Remaking India - One Country, One Destiny and find out to what extent he is thinking on the right lines.]
It was Maira's work that MMS was referring to when he said:
The Plan for the first time introduces alternative scenarios.
Scenario one is called “Strong Inclusive growth”. It presents what is possible if the policy actions outlined in the Plan are substantially implemented. One can expect a number of virtuous cycles to start operating, leading to positive results on both growth and inclusion. This is the scenario we should aim for.
Scenario two is called “insufficient action”. It describes a state of partial action with weak implementation. The virtuous cycles that reinforce growth in Scenario I, will not kick in, and growth can easily slow down to 6 to 6.5 percent. Inclusiveness will also suffer. This is where we will end up if we make only half-hearted efforts and slip in implementation. It is my sincere hope that we do not do so.
Scenario three is called “policy logjam”. It reflects a situation where for one reason or another, most of the policies needed to achieve Scenario 1 are not taken. If this continues for any length of time, vicious cycles begin to set in and growth could easily collapse to about 5 percent per year, with very poor outcomes on inclusion. I urge everyone interested in the country’s future to understand fully the implications of this scenario. They will quickly come to an agreement that the people of India deserve better than this.
I'm sure the 12th plan is full of miserable policies (most of the planning commission is still socialist), but at least I'll try to read the document now. We only got a lot of garbage from the planning commission for 60 years. We may have something (partially) worth reading, finally, from its portals.
My experience with planning commission is extensive and unhappy. I won't go into details here but let me just say that it was the most socialist organisation one can imagine, even in 2000. I'm glad that some reform oriented thinking is creeping in.
But that's not the point I'm making in this post. So back to the main point.
Mamata Banerjee is quitting UPA. The coalition is teetering. She wants to create a POLICY LOGJAM.
One of the greatest economics illiterates of India, Mamata is determined to block India's success.
Not content with destroying West Bengal (along with the communists), she is now determined to destroy India as well.
This should ring a CLEAR WARNING (even for "tubelights") about the dangers of PR.
Had India been following PR, we would have been unable even to have the 1991 reforms. India would have by now splintered (or be in the process of splintering) into many pieces.
I should know. By early 1990s I was working as Joint Secretary/ Addl. Secretary in Assam and what had become clear was that INDIA HAD NO MONEY. India had no money to pay government officials, teachers, even defence. It was being bankrupted at an alarming rate. And insurgency in Assam and NE was becoming out of control.
Had the 1991 reforms not come in, and some credit extended to state governments, the states would have gone bankrupt.
At that stage, the North East would have almost certainly split from India. Like USSR split into its constituent parts, India would have gone back to some form of pre-1947 disorder.
Let us all remember one thing: Without a strong police and armed force, India can't survive in one piece for long. India is prone to Balkanisation (it is after all a sub-continent). That's a basic message every policy maker should thoroughly understand. It was first suggested by Chanakya. When the Mauryan empire forgot this lesson, India splintered and became vulnerable to all kinds of foreign attacks.
Although the chances of India's Balkanisation appear low today, they were VERY HIGH in the early 1990s, and were getting higher. How can you run a country without ANY money? Wild inflation would have come in, and in the unrest, the country would have splintered.
With proportional representation India will Balkanise faster than you can blink your eyes.
Sardar Patel was in favour of a STRONG steel frame for India (IAS, etc.) and that principle must ALWAYS be followed in India. India' constituent assembly also deliberately picked a quasi-federal system with an exceptionally strong centre. For the same reason. India is not yet ready for total federalism. It needs to operate a tight ship for at least another century, and then more powers can be given to the states. (That having been said, local government must be very significantly strenghthened).
We need a government that has a clear mandate.
FPTP is not perfect. If socialist parties gain majorities, they can destroy India, too. But PR is guaranteed to paralyse and destroy India.
FPTP can create a "policy logjam". PR can entirely split the log-raft (India) into component logs.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- Montek, you’re a fool if you imagine you can “predict” inflation
- PD’s comment against my advocacy of FPTP
- FPTP is a proportional system – by geography; and accommodates local policies.
- End the monstrosity called the IAS if you want to save India from total ruin
- The return of East Germany to capitalism: pictorial evidence of total transformation
- Brainstorm: A compilation of electoral reforms proposals for India
- The rise in sea levels is SLOWING – making a total mockery of the IPCC models
- Please note that BJP is a total chamcha of Nehru. Let’s never forget that.
- The total mess that is IPCC. This is very serious stuff. Please do read.
- Electoral reforms proposed by Election Commission of India #1
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
If FPTP can be this bad, imagine what PR will do to India! Total Balkanisation. http://t.co/mNuXfWvu #uncategorized
If FPTP can be this bad, imagine what PR will do to India! Total Balkanisation. http://t.co/OzpK0Uxk
Well presented idea! For all practical purposes, the current political structure at the Center is no better than PR. The thugs like Mulayams, Mamtas, Mayawatis and similar parties can hold any govt to ransom! With Mamta’s decision to pull out, the horse trading will start again!
This phrase sums up capricious politician like Mamta: “One of the greatest economics illiterates of India, Mamata is determined to block India’s success.” In addition, she is exploiting religion to the fullest extent (her Party’s MPs will tender resignations after Friday afternoon!!).
USA has PR and they are doing fine. Why cant India do it. Another pertinent and very serious question is that what advantage is being gained by the people of India as a result of India being one country and not atleast 10 different countries??
There are ridiculous laws preventing commerce across states which effectively makes the two states like two independent countries except the fact that they have to give tax to the central govt. So that the Badshah’s of Delhi can spend it on their Tughlag-esq and socialist schemes??
In my view India needs very very high amount of freedom to the states especially with the revenue. Only a small minor amount should go to center which can take care of defense policy and provide legal framework for smooth inter state and international commerce.
RC, let’s compare apples with apples.
1) US is a presidential form of government. That is actually more desirable than PR for India. I have already elaborated on this issue.
2) US states were totally independent and voluntarily came together in their self-interest to prevent becoming a colony of the British (individually, they were vulnerable). India was united by the British but still had a strong tendency to splinter. It is crucial in India’s interest that it remain together. However, there are a lot of people who don’t understand why this is so important and are happy to splinter India. I disagree with them. By all means have greater federalism, but the government should be very strong and able to assert its will across every inch of India.
Your model (greater revenue powers to states) is in principle good. The point is at all times to balance the tendency of stronger states (e.g. Maharashtra) to refuse to share with the rest – that will lead to India splintering very quickly. I think India must remain together. We need to be very cautious in any change that can lead to the splintering of India. Vultures circle India from all sides.
s
I completely agree that a Presidential style system is more suited for India. It is astonishing that when India became independent and had a chance to start a new, it had both the models available the British and the American. Any cursory look at India’s composition would lead to the conclusion that India is more like United States and has extremely little in common with the United Kingdom. Yet in their infinite wisdom leaders of the time made their choice for a parliamentary system. Results are for everyone to see. A state where no one seems to be in-charge and chaos is a way of life.
It is time to declare that India experiment a colossal failure and make fundamental changes.
Indian states should be made independent and then requested and convinced to join a Federal Union the way United States exists. Sacrificing freedom for the idea of India is not worth it. 80% people cannot get two square meals anyways!!!
No, I didn’t say that presidential system is better for India (it is better than PR, but worse than FPTP).
In their wisdom (and recall that Ambedkar was educated in USA in law and was a “guru” in this area), the constituent assembly of India selected Westminster, FPTP style (just like the British, and consistent with India Act 1935).
I think Westminster FPTP is best for India, too.
And no, please don’t suggest things like “Indian states should be made independent and then requested and convinced to join a Federal Union the way United States exists”. These are mere administrative units, and have no historical basis to exist. Princely states had a historical basis of some independence, but they acceded to India or were forced to do so.
Every nation is different. India is perfectly fine the way it is – the problems you seem to refer to are caused by VERY MINOR institutional defects that can be readily fixed. Pl. read BFN.
s
I agree with RC and Sanjeev that fiscal responsibility should be at lower levels. I will go to the extent that it should be at the level of cities. States might be arbitrary administrative units, but cities are real, organic entities.
Sanjeev, what is your worst case scenario for the standard of living of Indians, if India balkanizes? It is one thing saying that india is surrounded by vultures. it is another thing to detail out a scenario about what these vultures would actually do.
if there is any power on the world with power left and masculine will left to colonise, one would say China. I sincerely doubt even China could occupy all of India. The Chinese would extend their territories to some extent, that is true. Even today the people of Arunachal are expressing regrets that they were born on this side of the line, seeing the awesome infrastructure just beyond the border.
The other major threat is the Islamic powers. But the thing about present islamic militancy is that it is not PRODUCTIVE. They will need a constant subsidy from Saudi Arabia, if they are not able to become good productive stationary bandits aka good rulers.
The greater internal threat I can foresee is real, bloody caste wars. Having tasted political power , the lower castes would immediately recognise that the disappearance of the central government and constitutional apparatus will mean that there is no word looking out for their interests. They will take their security into their own hands. How much friction this will lead to is anyone’s guess. There could be all-out war or a very long detente.
Ok.. my worst scenario looks pretty bad. Whats yours?
I agreed in principle, but the situation has to be balanced by the natural tendency of rich states like Maharashtra to lock out poor states which will immediately secede.
I don’t think India’s defence is negotiable, even hypothetically. These debates about who will attack India are futile. I don’t indulge in idle talk.
Chanakya laid out the fundamental rule: have strong defence. Let India follow that good advice.
Defence and unity is crucial in order to provide peace. Peace is the minimum requirement for prosperity. Let India be well defended and peaceful. I’d rather not debate India’s defence or think of ways to reduce India’s unity.
s