Since most Indians have at some point or the other been drawn into a discouraging maze of bureaucratic regulations and delays, public support is high for Narendra Modi’s drive to cut red tape. If there’s one positive legacy Modi will leave, it is likely to be a sincere effort to get rid of obsolete and irrational regulations. Modifying or eliminating rules, however, isn’t the same as subverting them, and I’m not convinced the prime minister cares about the difference.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, must care about it. On the day it produced a sweeping judgement deeming illegal most allocations of coal blocks made since 1993, the court also froze decisions taken by the National Wildlife Board in its meeting of August 12. The newly reconstituted board considered some 140 proposals for industrial, infrastructural and defence projects, each having the potential to harm endangered species such as the Narcondam Hornbill. Deliberations ended with the score reading, GDP growth 140: protected animals 0.
The result cheered entrepreneurs frustrated by the protracted process of getting environmental clearances. The problem was that it could only be achieved by ignoring a rule framed by the previous National Democratic Alliance regime. By law, the Wildlife Board has to include five members of NGOs and ten independent experts. Under Modi, this has become just three independent members. How independent is questionable, since one of them is a former forest officer, and another works for an agency funded by Gujarat’s government. The lone NGO nominated to the board is not an NGO at all, but a state-run institution headed by Gujarat’s chief minister. In the event, it’s a good thing the public interest litigation and stay order came so swiftly. The blatant gutting of the Wildlife Board made an adverse verdict inevitable, and it could have caused great damage had it come later. The court has shown little hesitation in striking down government policies despite hundreds of crores being invested consequent to their framing.
Brazilian dream
A few months ago, in the lead up to the football world cup, the New York Times published an interesting article about the souring of Brazil’s dream of equitable economic development. The piece is full of phrases that Indians will find familiar: “Crippling bureaucracy… bastions of corruption… wasteful spending and incompetence while basic services remain woeful… inability to finish big infrastructure projects… a labyrinthine system of audits and environmental controls…”. The embattled transportation minister César Borges lamented the number of agencies that oversaw or vetted government projects: The Federal Court of Accounts; the Office of the Comptroller General; an environmental protection agency; an institute protecting archaeological patrimony; agencies protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and descendants of escaped slaves; and the Public Ministry, a body of independent prosecutors.
Brazil’s economy has grown by just 2.7%, 1.0% and 2.5% in the past three years. The figures for South Africa, the other democracy among the BRICS nations (Russia can’t be counted as one), are 3.6%, 2.5% and 1.9%. Did similar factors contribute to declining growth in nations that were clubbed together while they were in ascendance? When the slowdown came, analysts in each country preferred to blame it on sheer governmental incompetence rather than structural problems, although the same parties were in power through boom and bust.
Regulatory problems certainly seem common to Brazil and India. All the organisations mentioned by Borges have analogues here. In addition, we, like many democracies today, have activist higher courts, a slew of news channels feeding off public outrage, and a parliament that increasingly prefers obstruction to debate. Back in January, during the interview with Times Now that had voters defecting to the NDA in droves, Rahul Gandhi repeatedly referred to six anti-corruption bills whose passage was being prevented by the opposition. Unsurprisingly, now that the roles are reversed, he and the Congress have adopted the same intransigence that served the BJP so well in opposition.
Feedback loops
RTI queries beget PILs, PILs beget headlines, headlines beget protests in parliament, protests beget legislative paralysis, paralysis begets public anger, anger begets RTI queries and PILs. This formulation, admittedly exaggerated and over-schematic, provides some indication of how vicious feedback loops claimed the previous administration. A comfortable majority in the Lower House provides the current ruling party only a little breathing room against them. The drip, drip, drip, of negative publicity could soon turn into a flood.
As chief minister of Gujarat, Modi managed to get the local media and to a large extent the courts in line behind his agenda. He developed an aura of incorruptibility despite a number of adverse reports by the state’s Comptroller and Auditor General. But he isn’t in Gandhinagar any more. Instead of repeating stunts that are doomed to failure, like the one with the National Wildlife Board, he will have to adapt to the many checks and balances that a democratic system provides.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, must care about it. On the day it produced a sweeping judgement deeming illegal most allocations of coal blocks made since 1993, the court also froze decisions taken by the National Wildlife Board in its meeting of August 12. The newly reconstituted board considered some 140 proposals for industrial, infrastructural and defence projects, each having the potential to harm endangered species such as the Narcondam Hornbill. Deliberations ended with the score reading, GDP growth 140: protected animals 0.
The result cheered entrepreneurs frustrated by the protracted process of getting environmental clearances. The problem was that it could only be achieved by ignoring a rule framed by the previous National Democratic Alliance regime. By law, the Wildlife Board has to include five members of NGOs and ten independent experts. Under Modi, this has become just three independent members. How independent is questionable, since one of them is a former forest officer, and another works for an agency funded by Gujarat’s government. The lone NGO nominated to the board is not an NGO at all, but a state-run institution headed by Gujarat’s chief minister. In the event, it’s a good thing the public interest litigation and stay order came so swiftly. The blatant gutting of the Wildlife Board made an adverse verdict inevitable, and it could have caused great damage had it come later. The court has shown little hesitation in striking down government policies despite hundreds of crores being invested consequent to their framing.
Brazilian dream
A few months ago, in the lead up to the football world cup, the New York Times published an interesting article about the souring of Brazil’s dream of equitable economic development. The piece is full of phrases that Indians will find familiar: “Crippling bureaucracy… bastions of corruption… wasteful spending and incompetence while basic services remain woeful… inability to finish big infrastructure projects… a labyrinthine system of audits and environmental controls…”. The embattled transportation minister César Borges lamented the number of agencies that oversaw or vetted government projects: The Federal Court of Accounts; the Office of the Comptroller General; an environmental protection agency; an institute protecting archaeological patrimony; agencies protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and descendants of escaped slaves; and the Public Ministry, a body of independent prosecutors.
Brazil’s economy has grown by just 2.7%, 1.0% and 2.5% in the past three years. The figures for South Africa, the other democracy among the BRICS nations (Russia can’t be counted as one), are 3.6%, 2.5% and 1.9%. Did similar factors contribute to declining growth in nations that were clubbed together while they were in ascendance? When the slowdown came, analysts in each country preferred to blame it on sheer governmental incompetence rather than structural problems, although the same parties were in power through boom and bust.
Regulatory problems certainly seem common to Brazil and India. All the organisations mentioned by Borges have analogues here. In addition, we, like many democracies today, have activist higher courts, a slew of news channels feeding off public outrage, and a parliament that increasingly prefers obstruction to debate. Back in January, during the interview with Times Now that had voters defecting to the NDA in droves, Rahul Gandhi repeatedly referred to six anti-corruption bills whose passage was being prevented by the opposition. Unsurprisingly, now that the roles are reversed, he and the Congress have adopted the same intransigence that served the BJP so well in opposition.
Feedback loops
RTI queries beget PILs, PILs beget headlines, headlines beget protests in parliament, protests beget legislative paralysis, paralysis begets public anger, anger begets RTI queries and PILs. This formulation, admittedly exaggerated and over-schematic, provides some indication of how vicious feedback loops claimed the previous administration. A comfortable majority in the Lower House provides the current ruling party only a little breathing room against them. The drip, drip, drip, of negative publicity could soon turn into a flood.
As chief minister of Gujarat, Modi managed to get the local media and to a large extent the courts in line behind his agenda. He developed an aura of incorruptibility despite a number of adverse reports by the state’s Comptroller and Auditor General. But he isn’t in Gandhinagar any more. Instead of repeating stunts that are doomed to failure, like the one with the National Wildlife Board, he will have to adapt to the many checks and balances that a democratic system provides.