Facing political and popular criticisms at home, the chief executives of the two largest democracies in the world, India and the US, spoke to the media on the same day, in what appears to be an uncanny coincidence. There were some similarities in what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said to five senior print journalists on June 28 and President Barack Obama?s answers at a White House news conference he was not scheduled for. In the final analysis, though, what they said is not likely to matter so much as why they did so and the manner in which they did it.
Both India and the US are hobbled by persistent economic problems. Despite continued and frequent tinkering of the interest rates by the Reserve Bank of India and the various government spokespersons trying to talk it down, the Indian inflation rate continues to hover close to double digits. The various economic stimuli in the US and other cheerleading efforts by the administration?s economic team have resulted in only marginal increases in job creation in the world?s leading economy.
The common Indian is worried about how to stretch her domestic budget, while the average American Joe-the-plumber worries whether he will have to apply for dole soon and whether he will get it if he were to do so. Indian businesses worry about the cost of credit and shrinking of domestic demand, the main engine of India?s growth, while their US counterparts worry about being increasingly import-dependent and losing their competitive edge. Internationally, uncertainties about India?s growth prospects and government responses have caused investor confidence to ebb considerably. The US has mounting anxieties about rising public debt and the gridlock between the legislative and executive wings on measures to control it, which can only have negative consequences in a world increasingly fearful of repeats of Greek tragedies.
The two leaders, considered masters in these problem areas, have thrown up their hands. Singh said that he has no magic wand to control inflation and expects the inflation rate to come down to 6% only by mid 2012. President Obama has said, as he has frequently done since taking office, that there is no quick fix to the economic situation. Neither of these reactions went down well with the pundits or the population. Both Singh and Obama took swipes?some gentle, some hard?at their critics, the Prime Minister even singling out the media.
Both, the Prime Minister and the President, are shackled. Singh is acutely aware that he is but an appointed head of the government, whose tenure depends on when his leader decides that the heir apparent is ready, no matter what spin is put on it. Obama has a recalcitrant Congress to deal with, which will not necessarily do his bidding no matter how he scolds it. Singh is further handicapped by a never-ending unspooling of corruption and a belligerent band of self-appointed crusaders for purity.
These similarities appear to be superficial. The routes the two men took to reach their respective positions in their media interaction are dramatically different. Despite the Prime Minister?s assertion that he is in charge, the Indian government has been on auto-pilot ever since the nuclear summer of three years ago. The National Advisory Council dictates the social agenda, be it food security or communal violence bill. Various ministers speak on their realms, as if they are not part of the collective responsibility system?Kapil Sibal on telecom and civil society, Jairam Ramesh on environment, to name just two. Congress functionaries outside the government virtually disown it when convenient. Singh spoke of the need to take decisions even in the face of uncertainty and risk being only partly right ex post, but reluctance is the hallmark of his (or the government?s) decisions. Witness the Mexican standoff with the Opposition on investigating the many scams, or the prolonged delay in biting the bullet on fuel prices.
President Obama, criticised early on in his tenure for being inordinately deliberative in his decisions, has now turned around completely. He is now said to depend on what the US press calls his ?gut? for decisions, overruling at times his closest advisors. His actions on the hunting of Osama bin Laden, the troop cut in Afghanistan, advice to Hosni Mubarak and the background action in Libya, are all cited as examples of his own forceful imprint on decisions, unlike the earlier ones on healthcare and the first economic surge, where he had acted more professorial, rather than as the ?commander-in-chief?, which he repeatedly asserted he was in his impromptu press conference.
Leadership is not just about taking decisions firmly and quickly. It is, even more importantly, about facing up to them openly and in time. The manner in which Singh was seemingly compelled to meet five journalists off camera contrasts starkly with the feisty nature of Obama?s jumping into the press conference. There is no transcript of the Prime Minister?s meeting; we do not even know the names of all who were present. One worthy who appeared on all the channels later said that we must not make too much of body language etc, but went on to say almost immediately thereafter that the Prime Minister appeared relaxed and at ease! This remark was picked up by all reports, sight unseen.
A democratic polity needs leaders to be periodically accessible and answerable to the people at large. Addressing a hand-picked group of people, however eminent they may be, at infrequent intervals is not even close to being a second-best solution. The government may need interlocutors to deal with the Kashmir problem, but the Indian people do not need them to know their own rulers.
Of all the deficits the Singh government faces?budgetary, governance, transparency?that concerning leadership is the very worst, and could prove disastrous not just to itself, but also to the country.
The author has taught at IIM-A and helped set up IRMA