The National Advisory Council (NAC), now all set to start a second innings after the appointment of Sonia Gandhi as its chairperson on Monday, was first set up in the tenure of UPA-1 to oversee the implementation of the common minimum programme and to act as an interface between civil society and government. The NAC, in its first avatar, got much credit for conducting advocacy for, and pushing the government to enact, two of UPA-1?s most significant legislative actions?the NREG and the Right to Information Act. But the NAC met an early demise when Sonia Gandhi resigned as chairperson in March 2006 after the office for profit controversy?though the NAC was officially disbanded only two years after that in March 2008. The government still hasn?t announced who the members of NAC-2 will be, but the membership of the first term serves as a good guide while understanding the motivation for, and future role of NAC-2. Almost all the members, including former bureaucrats, academics, scientists and activists were strongly associated with UPA?s agenda for social sectors and redistribution. There wasn?t much, if any, representation for the reformist, economic growth-oriented section of civil society. It will probably be the same this time.
The Congress party strongly believes that its redistributionist agenda?NREG, loan waiver and other big spending schemes?secured it a second term. And it probably believes that more such programmes are necessary to secure a third term. NAC-2 will likely perform the role of advocating redistributionist legislation like the Food Security Act, which seems to have lost its way in the last one year. The only difference is that NAC-1 operated in the boom years of economic growth, which made all the public spending affordable. NAC-2 has to operate in a different growth environment. And it must recognise that big spending programmes can only be financed in an economy that is booming and generating massive revenues for the government. With the international situation still bleak, the thrust for growth has to come from within. But will NAC-2 see reason in allowing (even pressurising) the government to continue with economic reform in order to get the kind of growth needed to sustain what NAC will likely have in mind on spending? Unlikely, if its membership has a profile similar to NAC-1. It is a pity that the Congress doesn?t have an institutional forum for economic reformers to make their voice heard, just like the NAC gives a focus to social sectors. After all, redistribution will bust the deficit if there isn?t any reform-generated growth.
