Sonia Gandhi has been honest in thanking the Left parties for enabling the minority UPA government to remain in office for four years recognising that the arithmetical difference between the two mainstream parties was rather small. However, I am not too impressed by media reports that the disassociation of the Left parties with the UPA can result in significant economic reforms. Some senior columnists have even encouraged Manmohan Singh to reassert himself and use the remaining period in office to conclude stalled reforms.
It would be an exaggeration to blame the Left for stalling economic initiatives for several reasons.
First, is there a consensus within the Congress party itself on the economic agenda? Many of us have not forgotten that the very reforms which are now intended were stalled by the Congress party when the NDA was in office. The Bill to reduce government equity in nationalised banks to 33 per cent introduced by the NDA was given a quiet burial since there was no consensus within the Congress party. The insistence on pegging a fixed number, namely 26 per cent, for foreign equity in the insurance sector was also at the insistence of the Congress. Efforts at labour reforms were resisted as much by the Congress-led trade unions as from organised labour unions of other political parties.
Second, the key changes necessary in many sectors like the social sector or infrastructure did not need Left support. For instance, not all the recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission on education were blocked due to resistance from the Left. Fostering improved primary education system, creating greater competition or appointing an independent regulator to oversee the accreditation system for higher education have been mired in the bureaucratic politics of the HRD ministry. The fact that the health minister has been unduly preoccupied in ousting a director of the AIIMS or banning advertisements for cigarettes and alcohol instead of addressing the more endemic issues of health to minimise the spread of infectious diseases, seek aggressive private partnership, revamp the primary health care sector is not the fault of the Left. The tardy implementation of important projects particularly large public outlays, the worrisome progress of the National Highway projects due to excessive rent seeking by coalition partners falls in the same category. As does delayed environment clearances for large public and private investment. The controversy surrounding spectrum allocation among and between private telecom operators has detracted focus from a more rapid spread of rural telephony and ensuring that the resources of the Universal Service Obligation Fund are fully used to enhance rural network and improve broad brand connectivity. Improved expenditure management, time and cost overrun for public outlays entail innovative approaches on implementation, monitoring and accountability which have eluded successive governments.
Third, unfortunately, the value of any of the big reform is never validated electorally. Election speeches understandably are about giveaways or populist promises?-rarely about decisions which would improve efficiency, enhance productivity through increased competition, and the changes necessary to move India to a higher growth trajectory. Political parties when voted to office are held accountable to implement the populist giveaways. . Opaqueness in the formulation of economic strategy may have advantages but does not oblige governments to implement them either. Elections are only some months away and most political parties would soon engage in scripting their manifestos. We should learn from the past and state more clearly of what is needed to move India to a 10 per cent plus growth trajectory, wipe out poverty, make up deficiency in social and physical infrastructure.
Finally, it is only in a post-election period and based on the configurations that emerge that serious legislative business can resume.
The author is a Rajya Sabha member of parliament