Trying to ascribe motives to political victories and defeats is a tricky business in India. After the LS election there was a lot of talk of aspirational India, a belief that we are finally out of the mai-baap sarkar politics where government is seen as giver of things. That people has started to dare of dreaming jobs and economy and government is just a facilitator of that. That more often than not it is better that government gets out of the way rather than depending on government for your sustenance. Lot of people thought this because of the way Modi won, the magnitude of his victory and the way he campaigned. Because he symbolizes this new brand of politics where people are not dependent on government for day-to-day things, that government is not a giver of things but just a facilitator. Modi's often repeated slogan of 'Minimum government Maximum governance' also seemed to suggest this (even thought he may not have been able to live up to it many times). There was a lot of general euphoria in the free marketers and economic right (and social right) middle class. There was a feeling that we are finally out of the dark days of congress, DMK, AIDMK, SP, BSP etc where government promises some free things before elections like TV, laptop, free electricity, cheap wheat, rice and then after election does a poor attempt (with lots of corruption) of delivering these things. Then they sit smugly for five years claiming it has done its job neglecting its real job of building decent infrastructure, governance, administration, effective regulation.
However, if experts thought that people needed break from all that then Delhi election proves that it was probably only partially true. Because in a state which has the highest per capita income in India the same aspirational voter chose AAP which is as socialist and leftist as it gets. May be people just needed more efficient socialist government. Yes it's true I might be making the same mistake of ascribing motive to a local election victory which might be decided on a lot of local issues. It may be that people decided that Kiran Bedi is also socialist but Kejriwal is more efficient at it. Or that in a small city state what matters is delivery of local governance, that it was more a municipal election.
But given the magnitude of victory and the kind of ultra left wing socialist language of AAP where every industrialist rich person is 'chor' or the only good politician is the one giving free stuff one can't help but feel that this victory sends the message that voters in large parts of India still want socialist government, an efficient corruption free socialist government who can crack down on local corruption but socialist nonetheless. May be Modi's victory also on the large part was because people thought he would crack down on local corruptions, that he would make doctors come to duty on time in rural hospitals, that he would make teachers teach properly in government schools, that he would remove inefficiencies and corruption from government schemes like PDS, MGNREGA, etc. May be Modi's strong leader image made them think that he would deliver at the local level and remove inefficiencies and corruption. May be they wanted efficient, in-corrupt but ultimately socialist government who delivers free things to people.
If that is the case then Modi has a major problem on his hand. If that is the case then Modi's popularity rating will quickly and continuously go down and soon old hands like Nitish, Mulayam will be back in power in their respective states and BJP's rise as a natural party of governance will look much more doubtful. Because while people will continue to punish Congress for a while because of its many many corruption scandals, people in India have shown that they have short memories and they forgive easily. May be they would want to go back to socialism again hoping that Congress has learned its lesson and they would keep corruption in check.
For Modi to avoid this fate (which will be very difficult if people indeed want left wing socialism) he would need to first communicate a lot better than he is doing now. Communicating with people doesn't mean just talking about swachch Bharat, or Make in India but he would also have to explain his motives behind those campaigns. Because while he has never have to explain himself in Gujarat, where people who are business-minded instinctively understood that what is better for the business or economy is better for them, that if he spends time wooing global investors, industrialists, business leaders he is not working for the rich but helping the economy as a whole, that his ultimate objective with those global investor summits was to create jobs, to kick start the economy, but as a PM of India he will have to explain to Indians all this and keep repealing the lie that his government is working for the rich and that he has forgotten the poor common men. Quite the contrary by tirelessly working to get investment from China, USA, Australia or from the local Indian businessmen he is working for the poor and middle class and for everybody. That if the economy grows at 8-9% everyone will benefit and that is his ultimate goal.
He should remind the Indian people of why they loved him in the first place, of his clean scrupulous record of 15 years as a CM of Gujarat. How he has never been accused of any corruption anywhere, how he has no family to support for whom he would collect money, how he has dedicated himself fully to the country living a bachelor life without any children, how his mother continues to live middle class simple life despite him being the PM. All this he will have to keep communicating with the people and remind them that he is working for them, for the poorest of the poor and that contrary to the public perception being created his whole effort whether in Make in India campaign or Land Acquisition Bill, or anything he does is to help poor people, to get people jobs, to get economy growing at 8-9%. He doesn't want any money or favor personally from anybody. He will have to keep repeating this again and again to counter the propaganda of AAP and others in India, especially since lot of his actions (like LAB) by their nature will seem otherwise.
Ultimately though, for Modi, in the end what will matter after 5 years is whether he has been successful or not in doing what he wanted, getting the economy growing at 8-9%. He could get unlucky and outside global factors might prevent him from achieving this and he might lose next election. Or growth might pick up but if he is not effective in communication then the perception might be created that it was because of global factors that growth picked up and that he needs to be removed as he is crony and in bed with rich industrialists.
One thing where his criticism is valid (and this was the criticism in Gujarat too) is that he hasn't focused much on human development, on health and education. Mr. Modi is impatient in getting the economy growing but he needs to understand that ultimately the quality of manpower in the long term will decide the economic fate of the country. For this first thing he needs to do is to get better ministers for education and health. Then even if he doesn't focus on these two areas much the ministers effectively can bring some change. Because an economy needs not just land, electricity, water, effective regulation, freedom from bureaucratic and political harassment but ultimately it needs quality skilled, highly skilled, semi skilled manpower. Modi would be better served to focus on that which would also make him look less pro-rich and would make his socialist-leftist base happy.
However, if experts thought that people needed break from all that then Delhi election proves that it was probably only partially true. Because in a state which has the highest per capita income in India the same aspirational voter chose AAP which is as socialist and leftist as it gets. May be people just needed more efficient socialist government. Yes it's true I might be making the same mistake of ascribing motive to a local election victory which might be decided on a lot of local issues. It may be that people decided that Kiran Bedi is also socialist but Kejriwal is more efficient at it. Or that in a small city state what matters is delivery of local governance, that it was more a municipal election.
But given the magnitude of victory and the kind of ultra left wing socialist language of AAP where every industrialist rich person is 'chor' or the only good politician is the one giving free stuff one can't help but feel that this victory sends the message that voters in large parts of India still want socialist government, an efficient corruption free socialist government who can crack down on local corruption but socialist nonetheless. May be Modi's victory also on the large part was because people thought he would crack down on local corruptions, that he would make doctors come to duty on time in rural hospitals, that he would make teachers teach properly in government schools, that he would remove inefficiencies and corruption from government schemes like PDS, MGNREGA, etc. May be Modi's strong leader image made them think that he would deliver at the local level and remove inefficiencies and corruption. May be they wanted efficient, in-corrupt but ultimately socialist government who delivers free things to people.
If that is the case then Modi has a major problem on his hand. If that is the case then Modi's popularity rating will quickly and continuously go down and soon old hands like Nitish, Mulayam will be back in power in their respective states and BJP's rise as a natural party of governance will look much more doubtful. Because while people will continue to punish Congress for a while because of its many many corruption scandals, people in India have shown that they have short memories and they forgive easily. May be they would want to go back to socialism again hoping that Congress has learned its lesson and they would keep corruption in check.
For Modi to avoid this fate (which will be very difficult if people indeed want left wing socialism) he would need to first communicate a lot better than he is doing now. Communicating with people doesn't mean just talking about swachch Bharat, or Make in India but he would also have to explain his motives behind those campaigns. Because while he has never have to explain himself in Gujarat, where people who are business-minded instinctively understood that what is better for the business or economy is better for them, that if he spends time wooing global investors, industrialists, business leaders he is not working for the rich but helping the economy as a whole, that his ultimate objective with those global investor summits was to create jobs, to kick start the economy, but as a PM of India he will have to explain to Indians all this and keep repealing the lie that his government is working for the rich and that he has forgotten the poor common men. Quite the contrary by tirelessly working to get investment from China, USA, Australia or from the local Indian businessmen he is working for the poor and middle class and for everybody. That if the economy grows at 8-9% everyone will benefit and that is his ultimate goal.
He should remind the Indian people of why they loved him in the first place, of his clean scrupulous record of 15 years as a CM of Gujarat. How he has never been accused of any corruption anywhere, how he has no family to support for whom he would collect money, how he has dedicated himself fully to the country living a bachelor life without any children, how his mother continues to live middle class simple life despite him being the PM. All this he will have to keep communicating with the people and remind them that he is working for them, for the poorest of the poor and that contrary to the public perception being created his whole effort whether in Make in India campaign or Land Acquisition Bill, or anything he does is to help poor people, to get people jobs, to get economy growing at 8-9%. He doesn't want any money or favor personally from anybody. He will have to keep repeating this again and again to counter the propaganda of AAP and others in India, especially since lot of his actions (like LAB) by their nature will seem otherwise.
Ultimately though, for Modi, in the end what will matter after 5 years is whether he has been successful or not in doing what he wanted, getting the economy growing at 8-9%. He could get unlucky and outside global factors might prevent him from achieving this and he might lose next election. Or growth might pick up but if he is not effective in communication then the perception might be created that it was because of global factors that growth picked up and that he needs to be removed as he is crony and in bed with rich industrialists.
One thing where his criticism is valid (and this was the criticism in Gujarat too) is that he hasn't focused much on human development, on health and education. Mr. Modi is impatient in getting the economy growing but he needs to understand that ultimately the quality of manpower in the long term will decide the economic fate of the country. For this first thing he needs to do is to get better ministers for education and health. Then even if he doesn't focus on these two areas much the ministers effectively can bring some change. Because an economy needs not just land, electricity, water, effective regulation, freedom from bureaucratic and political harassment but ultimately it needs quality skilled, highly skilled, semi skilled manpower. Modi would be better served to focus on that which would also make him look less pro-rich and would make his socialist-leftist base happy.
